Compiled by
Johanna M. Christiansen
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Federal Public Defender’s Office
for the Central District of Illinois
Issues
Pending In
Criminal
Cases in the
Seventh
Circuit
Updated 6/5/15
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
.............................................................................................................................................................. 0
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i
Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................... vii
I.
Appellate Procedure .................................................................................................. 2
II.
Competency ............................................................................................................. 2
III.
Counsel..................................................................................................................... 2
A.
Choice of ........................................................................................................................................... 2
B.
Ineffective Assistance ....................................................................................................................... 2
C.
Motion for New Counsel ................................................................................................................... 2
D.
Privileged information ...................................................................................................................... 2
E.
Waiver of ........................................................................................................................................... 2
IV.
Collateral Attack ..................................................................................................... 3
V.
Contempt ................................................................................................................. 3
VI.
Discovery ................................................................................................................. 3
VII. Double Jeopardy ..................................................................................................... 3
VIII.
Evidence and Trial Procedure ........................................................................... 3
A.
Brady ................................................................................................................................................. 3
B.
Bruton ............................................................................................................................................... 3
C.
Brady Material .................................................................................................................................. 3
D.
Closing argument .............................................................................................................................. 4
E.
Co-conspirator statements ............................................................................................................... 5
F.
Confrontation, right to ...................................................................................................................... 5
G.
Confidential Informants .................................................................................................................... 6
H.
Continuances .................................................................................................................................... 6
I.
Cross-examination ............................................................................................................................ 6
J.
Cumulative Errors ............................................................................................................................. 6
K.
Demonstrative Evidence ................................................................................................................... 6
i
L.
Entrapment ....................................................................................................................................... 6
M.
Experts .......................................................................................................................................... 6
N.
Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine ...................................................................................................... 7
O.
Hearsay ............................................................................................................................................. 7
P.
Impeachment .................................................................................................................................... 7
Q.
Insufficient ........................................................................................................................................ 7
R.
Line-ups/Identification...................................................................................................................... 9
S.
Prosecutorial Misconduct ................................................................................................................. 9
T.
Relevance ........................................................................................................................................ 10
U.
Right to be Present for Trial ............................................................................................................ 10
V.
Right to Present a Defense ............................................................................................................. 10
W.
Rules of Evidence ........................................................................................................................ 11
1.
109 (Foundation)......................................................................................................................... 11
2.
401 (Relevant Evidence).............................................................................................................. 11
3.
403 (Exclusion of Relevant Evidence) ......................................................................................... 11
4.
404(b)(Character Evidence) ........................................................................................................ 11
5.
605 (Judge’s Competency as a Witness) ..................................................................................... 12
6.
609 (Prior Convictions)................................................................................................................ 12
7.
702 (Testimony by an Expert) ..................................................................................................... 12
X.
Shackles at Trial............................................................................................................................... 12
Y.
Selective Prosecution ...................................................................................................................... 12
Z.
Self Incrimination ............................................................................................................................ 12
AA.
Severance/Joinder ...................................................................................................................... 12
BB.
Speedy Trial ................................................................................................................................. 13
CC.
Stipulations ................................................................................................................................. 13
DD.
Witnesses .................................................................................................................................... 13
EE.
Wiretaps ...................................................................................................................................... 14
IX.
Forfeiture ............................................................................................................... 14
X.
Guilty Pleas & Plea Agreements ........................................................................ 14
A.
Appeal Waiver ................................................................................................................................. 14
B.
By Magistrate .................................................................................................................................. 15
ii
C.
Competency .................................................................................................................................... 15
D.
Factual Basis .................................................................................................................................... 15
E.
Interference with by judge.............................................................................................................. 15
F.
Knowing and Voluntary................................................................................................................... 15
G.
Withdrawal...................................................................................................................................... 15
H.
Breach ............................................................................................................................................. 16
XI.
Indictment.............................................................................................................. 16
XII. Interstate Agreement on Detainers .................................................................... 17
XIII.
Jury Issues .......................................................................................................... 17
A.
Selection.......................................................................................................................................... 17
B.
Batson ............................................................................................................................................. 17
C.
Challenges for Cause ....................................................................................................................... 18
D.
Deliberations ................................................................................................................................... 18
E.
Instructions ..................................................................................................................................... 19
F.
Mistrial ............................................................................................................................................ 21
XIV.
Offenses .............................................................................................................. 21
A.
8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry)...................................................................................................... 21
B.
18 U.S.C. § 373 ................................................................................................................................ 21
C.
18 U.S.C. § 401(3) ............................................................................................................................ 22
D.
18 U.S.C. § 666 ................................................................................................................................ 22
E.
18 U.S.C. § 915 (Foreign Diplomat) ................................................................................................. 22
F.
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) ............................................................................................................................ 22
G.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(use of weapon during drug or violent felony) .................................................. 22
H.
18 U.S.C. § 956 ................................................................................................................................ 23
I.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) ................................................................................................ 24
J.
18 U.S.C. § 1017 .............................................................................................................................. 24
K.
18 U.S.C. § 1028A (aggravated identity theft) ................................................................................ 24
L.
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) .......................................................................................................... 24
M.
18 U.S.C. § 1343(wire fraud) ....................................................................................................... 24
N.
18 U.S.C. § 1346 (Honest Services Fraud) ....................................................................................... 25
O.
18 U.S.C. § 1347 (health care fraud) ............................................................................................... 25
iii
P.
18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking) .................................................................................................... 25
Q.
18 U.S.C. § 1832 (Economic espionage) .......................................................................................... 25
R.
18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) .......................................................................................................... 25
S.
18 U.S.C. § 1959 .............................................................................................................................. 25
T.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(RICO) .................................................................................................................... 25
U.
18 U.S.C. § 2113 .............................................................................................................................. 26
V.
18 U.S.C. § 2250 (Failure to Register) ............................................................................................. 26
W.
18 U.S.C. § 2342(a) (Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act)....................................................... 26
X.
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (inducing a minor re: sex)................................................................................ 26
Y.
18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v)(lascivious exhibition of genitals) ........................................................... 26
Z.
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(Controlled Substances) ..................................................................................... 26
AA.
21 U.S.C. § 843 (Phone Count) .................................................................................................... 26
BB.
21 U.S.C. § 846 (Controlled Substances Conspiracy) .................................................................. 26
CC.
42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(1)(A) (Anti-Kickback Statute) ............................................................... 27
DD.
42 U.S.C. § 7413 (Environmental Offeses) .................................................................................. 27
EE.
42 U.S.C. § 16911(d)(SORNA) ...................................................................................................... 27
XV. Recusal ................................................................................................................... 27
XVI.
Restitution .......................................................................................................... 27
XVII.
Retroactive Guideline Amendments .............................................................. 27
XVIII.
A.
Search & Seizure ............................................................................................ 28
Arrest............................................................................................................................................... 28
1.
In the home ................................................................................................................................. 28
2.
Probable cause to ....................................................................................................................... 28
B.
Canine Searches .............................................................................................................................. 28
C.
Consent ........................................................................................................................................... 29
D.
Curtilage .......................................................................................................................................... 29
E.
Excessive Force ............................................................................................................................... 30
F.
Expectation of privacy..................................................................................................................... 30
G.
Franks .............................................................................................................................................. 30
H.
Good Faith Exception ...................................................................................................................... 31
I.
Hearing ............................................................................................................................................ 31
iv
J.
Miranda........................................................................................................................................... 31
K.
Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................................. 31
L.
Reasonable suspicion ...................................................................................................................... 31
M.
Search.......................................................................................................................................... 32
1.
Inevitable discovery .................................................................................................................... 32
2.
Probable cause to ....................................................................................................................... 32
3.
Protective Sweeps ....................................................................................................................... 33
N.
Standing. ......................................................................................................................................... 33
O.
Terry Stops ...................................................................................................................................... 33
P.
Warrants ......................................................................................................................................... 34
XIX.
Sentencing .......................................................................................................... 34
A.
Acquitted conduct........................................................................................................................... 34
B.
Armed Career Criminal/Career Offender........................................................................................ 34
C.
Burden of Proof............................................................................................................................... 36
D.
Consecutive/Concurrent Sentences................................................................................................ 36
E.
Cumulative Error ............................................................................................................................. 36
F.
Double Jeopardy ............................................................................................................................. 36
G.
Entrapment and manipulation........................................................................................................ 36
H.
Evidence admissible ........................................................................................................................ 36
I.
Ex Post Facto ................................................................................................................................... 36
J.
Fair Sentencing Act ......................................................................................................................... 36
K.
Fast Track ........................................................................................................................................ 36
L.
Fines ................................................................................................................................................ 36
M.
Forfeiture .................................................................................................................................... 36
N.
Guideline Sections........................................................................................................................... 36
1.
1B1.10(b)(2)(A)............................................................................................................................ 36
2.
2A3.5(b)(1)(A) (committing a sex offense while in fugitive status) ............................................ 36
3.
2B1.1(a)(money laundering) ....................................................................................................... 37
4.
2B1.1(b)(1) (Amount of loss)....................................................................................................... 37
5.
2B1.1(b)(2) (number of victims in fraud) .................................................................................... 37
6.
2B1.1(b)(2)(A) (mass marketing) ................................................................................................. 37
7.
2B1.1(b)(9)(C)(Sophisticated Means).......................................................................................... 37
v
8.
2B1.1(b)(10)(A) (relocating fraudulent scheme)......................................................................... 37
9.
2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i) (production of counterfeit access device) .................................................... 38
10.
2B1.1(b)(18)(B)(offense involving commodities law) ............................................................. 38
11.
2B3.1 (carjacking) .................................................................................................................... 38
12.
2D1.1(Controlled Substances) ................................................................................................ 38
13.
2D1.1(b)(1) (possession of a firearm during drug offense)..................................................... 38
14.
2G1.3(b)(3)(A)(using a computer to entice minor) ................................................................. 39
15.
2G2.1 (child exploitation)........................................................................................................ 39
16.
2G2.2 (child pornography) ...................................................................................................... 39
17.
2K2.1(a)(firearm offense after prior drug felony) ................................................................... 39
18.
2K2.1(b)(1)(B) (number of firearms involved) ........................................................................ 39
19.
2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (possession of firearm in connection with a felony offense) .......................... 39
20.
2K2.1(c)(1)(A)(using firearm in connection with another offense) ........................................ 39
21.
2L1.2 (prior conviction) ........................................................................................................... 39
22.
2L2.1(b)(2)(C) (more than 100 documents) ............................................................................ 39
23.
2L2.1(b)(5)(B)(using or obtaining a foreign passport) ............................................................ 39
24.
2T1.1........................................................................................................................................ 39
25.
2X1.1 (attempt) ....................................................................................................................... 40
26.
3A1.1(vulnerable victim) ......................................................................................................... 40
27.
3A1.2(c)(1) (assaulting an official victim) ................................................................................ 40
28.
3B1.1(a)(Leader or organizer) ................................................................................................. 40
29.
3B1.2(Minor role).................................................................................................................... 41
30.
3B1.3(Abuse of position of trust) ............................................................................................ 41
31.
3C1.1(Obstruction of justice) .................................................................................................. 41
32.
3D1.2(Grouping)...................................................................................................................... 42
33.
3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility) ...................................................................................... 42
34.
4A1.1 (Criminal History) .......................................................................................................... 42
35.
5C1.2 (Safety Valve) ................................................................................................................ 43
36.
5G1.2(Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences) ..................................................................... 43
37.
5G1.3(Credit for time served on state case) ........................................................................... 43
38.
5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance) ................................................................................................ 44
39.
5K2.20 (Aberrant Behavior) .................................................................................................... 44
vi
O.
Mandatory Minimums .................................................................................................................... 44
P.
Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................................. 46
Q.
Reasonableness............................................................................................................................... 47
1.
Procedural ................................................................................................................................... 47
2.
Substantive.................................................................................................................................. 53
R.
Relevant Conduct ............................................................................................................................ 56
S.
Restitution....................................................................................................................................... 57
T.
Rule 32 (Notice & Findings)............................................................................................................. 58
U.
Statutory maximums and minimums.............................................................................................. 58
XX. Supervised Release ............................................................................................... 58
XXI.
Waiver ................................................................................................................. 68
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
. 41
United State v. Phillips, No. 12-2532 .............................................................................. 12
United States Smart, No. 14-3053. .................................................................................. 53
United States v. Adams, No. 13-1368 .............................................................................. 53
United States v. Adams, No. 14-2579 .............................................................................. 23
United States v. Adams, No. 14-2579. ............................................................................. 15
United States v. Addison, No. 14-2515.............................................................................. 6
United States v. Ajayi, No. 14-2183. .............................................................................. 17
United States v. Ajayi, No. 14-2183. ............................................................... 7, 11, 17, 20
United States v. Aleshire, No. 15-1192 ............................................................................ 33
United States v. Amaya, No. 14-2617.............................................................................. 26
United States v. Amaya, No. 14-2617.......................................................................... 7, 23
United States v. Anglin, No. 15-1251.............................................................................. 33
United States v. Anzaldi, No. 14-1206. ....................................................................... 2, 12
United States v. Arch, No. 14-3096 ................................................................................. 68
United States v. Armand, No. 14-3757...................................................................... 53, 68
United States v. Armour, No. 15-1604. ........................................................................... 68
United States v. Austin, No. 12-3175 .............................................................................. 58
United States v. Auston, No. 14-3135. ............................................................................ 46
vii
United States v. Bell, No. 14-3462. ................................................................................ 7, 9
United States v. Beltran, No. 12-2990 ............................................................................. 28
United States v. Bethany, No. 13-1777 ...................................................................... 16, 44
United States v. Black, No. 13-3908. ......................................................................... 40, 56
United States v. Bloch, No. 13-3333. ............................................................................... 39
United States v. Bond, No. 15-1224. .......................................................................... 36, 45
United States v. Borostowski, No. 13-3811................................................................ 29, 53
United States v. Boultinghouse, No. 14-2764 .................................................................. 53
United States v. Boultinghouse, No. 14-2764. ................................................................... 2
United States v. Bounds, No. 13-3910. ...................................................................... 26, 38
United States v. Bour, Nos. 14-2211 & 15-1090. .......................................... 51, 55, 58, 68
United States v. Bowling, No. 13-3895...................................................................... 11, 13
United States v. Bozovich, No. 14-1435. ............................................................................ 6
United States v. Brandon, No. 13-3471. .......................................................................... 29
United States v. Brewster, No. 14-1285. .................................................................... 53, 60
United States v. Brown, et al., Nos. 14-1363, 14-1364, 14-1426, and 14-2689. ... 4, 5, 11,
45
United States v. Brown, No. 12-3290. ............................................................................. 17
United States v. Brown, No. 14-2524 .............................................................................. 15
United States v. Burgess, No. 13-3571 ............................................................................ 32
United States v. Burke, No. 15-1882.......................................................................... 52, 53
United States v. Burnett, Nos. 13-2882 & 13-2974. ........................................... 38, 40, 41
United States v. Butler, No. 14-2770. .............................................................................. 43
United States v. Camacho-Montalvo, No. 14-1220. ........................................................ 49
United States v. Cardena, No. 12-3680.................................................................. 5, 10, 27
United States v. Carroll, No. 13-2600.............................................................................. 34
United States v. Chapman, 13-1515. ................................................................................ 25
United States v. Chapman, No. 13-1515.......................................................................... 14
United States v. Charles, No. 14-1530. .................................................................. 2, 11, 31
United States v. Chatman, No. 14-2519. ................................................................... 53, 66
United States v. Clarke, No. 14-3515. .............................................................................. 20
United States v. Coleman, 12-2621 .................................................................................... 3
United States v. Coleman, No. 12-2919 ........................................................................... 38
United States v. Collins, No. 14-3427.............................................................................. 16
United States v. Collins, No. 14-3427........................................................................ 42, 47
United States v. Conour, No. 13-3753 & 14-2629. ..................................................... 2, 62
United States v. Contreas, No. 15-1279. .................................................................... 29, 33
United States v. Corral, No. 14-1964. ........................................................................ 46, 47
United States v. Cortez-Lopez, No. 14-2638. ................................................................... 47
United States v. Crundwell, No. 13-1407 ........................................................................ 48
viii
United States v. Cruse, No. 13-2929.......................................................................... 17, 19
United States v. Cruz, No. 14-1992. ................................................................................ 53
United States v. Cunningham, No. 15-1607.................................................................... 53
United States v. Cureton, Nos. 14-2576 & 14-2586........................................................ 66
United States v. Dade, No. 14-2072. ................................................................................ 41
United States v. Daniels, No. 13-2078. ................................................................ 10, 13, 19
United States v. Davis, 13-1978 ....................................................................................... 16
United States v. Davis, 14-3109. ...................................................................................... 58
United States v. Davis, No. 13-2143................................................................................ 47
United States v. Davis, No. 14-3109................................................................................ 43
United States v. Dean, No. 13-2982. .......................................................................passim
United States v. Dearborn, No. 14-3032. ......................................................................... 68
United States v. Dessart, No. 14-2686. ............................................................ 8, 20, 30, 34
United States v. Dill, No. 15-1425. .................................................................................. 67
United States v. Dixon, No. 14-3225. .................................................................... 3, 26, 58
United States v. Dixon, No. 14-3470. .......................................................................... 8, 12
United States v. Douglas, No. 15-1208............................................................................ 66
United States v. Downs, No. 14-3157.............................................................................. 68
United States v. DuPriest, No. 13-3914. ......................................................................... 60
United States v. DuPriest, No. 14-2419. ......................................................................... 62
United States v. Dvorkin, No. 14-2799.................................................................... 4, 6, 21
United States v. Erramilli, No. 13-3095. ......................................................................... 12
United States v. Evanick, No. 13-3476 ...................................................................... 53, 67
United States v. Evanick, No. 13-3476. ..................................................................... 56, 67
United States v. Falor, No. 14-1369. .................................................................... 53, 61, 68
United States v. Faruki, No. 14-2914. ................................................................... 5, 12, 25
United States v. Faulkner, No. 14-3332. ............................................................................ 3
United States v. Ferrell, No. 14-2915 ................................................................................ 7
United States v. Ferrell, No. 14-2915. ............................................................................. 12
United States v. Flores, No. 14-1928. .............................................................................. 61
United States v. Flores, No. 15-1515. .............................................................................. 32
United States v. Ford, No. 13-3529.................................................................................. 16
United States v. Ford, No. 14-3452...................................................................... 53, 58, 68
United States v. Freeman, No. 15-1170. .............................................................. 17, 18, 57
United States v. Garcia, No. 14-2368. ................................................................. 51, 58, 62
United States v. Garibay, No. 14-2678. ........................................................................... 41
United States v. Gill, No. 14-3205. ............................................................................ 43, 66
United States v. Giovenco, No. 13-3283. ......................................................................... 24
United States v. Gonzalez, No. 13-1832 ............................................................................ 7
United States v. Goree, No. 13-2669 ................................................................................ 27
ix
United States v. Gray, No. 13-1788 ................................................................................. 28
United States v. Gregory, Cipra, & Konrady, No. 14-2747, 14-2792, & 14-2759.......... 30
United States v. Gregory, Cipra, & Konrady, Nos. 14-2747, 14-2792, & 14-2759. . 30, 34
United States v. Griffin, No. 14-1833. ............................................................................. 61
United States v. Grzegorczyk, No. 14-3460. ........................................................ 40, 51, 55
United States v. Gutierrez, No. 14-1159.......................................................................... 33
United States v. Hall, No. 14-1230. ................................................................................. 61
United States v. Hamad, No. 14-3813 ............................................................................. 31
United States v. Hamad, No. 14-3813. ............................................................................ 32
United States v. Hardimon, No. 14-1120. ....................................................................... 56
United States v. Harper, No. 14-2701........................................................................ 37, 67
United States v. Harris, No. 13-2216 .............................................................................. 47
United States v. Harris, No. 14-1846. ........................................................... 24, 28, 33, 41
United States v. Haslam, No. 14-2641. ................................................................ 14, 15, 16
United States v. Hawkins, No. 14-2210. .......................................................................... 14
United States v. Hayden, No. 13-3750. ............................................................................. 7
United States v. Hayden, No. 14-1812. ........................................................................... 56
United States v. Haynes, No. 13-3617 ............................................................................. 47
United States v. Haynes, No. 13-3617. ...................................................................... 19, 27
United States v. Haywood, No. 13-3815. ................................................................... 37, 41
United States v. Henderson, No. 13-3861.................................................................. 15, 16
United States v. Henderson, No. 14-2297........................................................................ 15
United States v. Hendricks, No. 14-2477 ......................................................................... 45
United States v. Hendricks, No.14-2477 .......................................................................... 45
United States v. Herman, No. 13-3210. ........................................................................... 29
United States v. Herrell, No. 13-1023.............................................................................. 44
United States v. Herrera-Valdez, No. 14-3534. ............................................................... 21
United States v. Hill, No. 14-2019 ..................................................................................... 6
United States v. Hill, No. 14-2019. .................................................................................. 31
United States v. Hillman, No. 13-3689............................................................................ 22
United States v. Hines-Flagg, 14-2975. ............................................................................ 37
United States v. Hussinger, No. 14-2708. ................................................................. 43, 68
United States v. Ingram, No. 12-3194 ............................................................................. 59
United States v. Jackson & Spencer, No. 13-2649. .......................................................... 11
United States v. Jemine, No. 12-3857 ........................................................................ 35, 53
United States v. Jenkins, No. 13-3409. ............................................................................ 43
United States v. Jenkins, No. 14-2898. ............................................................................ 10
United States v. Jimenez, No. 14-1973. ........................................................................... 56
United States v. Jines, No. 14-1603. .......................................................................... 53, 60
United States v. Jines, No. 14-1861. ................................................................................ 56
x
United States v. Johnson, No. 12-3092 ...................................................................... 48, 54
United States v. Johnson, No. 13-2094 ............................................................................ 59
United States v. Johnson, No. 14-1465 ............................................................................ 49
United States v. Johnson, No. 14-1465. ........................................................................... 53
United States v. Johnson, No. 14-2240. ........................................................................ 39
United States v. Johnson, No. 14-3095. ..................................................................... 64, 68
United States v. Johnson, No. 15-1366. ........................................................................... 34
United States v. Jones, No. 11-3864 ................................................................................. 48
United States v. Jones, No. 14-1665. .................................................................... 15, 17, 43
United States v. Jones, No. 14-2787. .......................................................................... 51, 63
United States v. Jones, No. 14-3103. ........................................................................passim
United States v. Jones, No. 14-3727 ................................................................................. 12
United States v. Jones, No. 14-3727. ................................................................................ 11
United States v. Jones, No. 15-1129. ................................................................................ 68
United States v. Kasp, No. 13-2907 ................................................................................. 41
United States v. Kelly, No. 14-1015. ................................................................................ 34
United States v. Khatib, No. 14-2216. ............................................................................. 13
United States v. Kieffer, Nos. 14-2650, 14-2652, & 14-1653. ......................................... 42
United States v. Kielar, No. 14-1390. ............................................................................ 2, 5
United States v. King, No. 13-2940 ................................................................................. 36
United States v. Kolp, No. 14-1601.................................................................................. 46
United States v. LaChappelle, No. 14-2721. .................................................................... 63
United States v. Langman, No. 14-2925. ......................................................................... 63
United States v. Larios-Buentello, No. 15-1312. ............................................................. 21
United States v. Latin & DeSalvo, Nos. 13-3844 & 13-3820.................................... 11, 20
United States v. Lawler, No. 15-1496. ............................................................................. 38
United States v. Lawson, No. 14-1233. ............................................................................ 12
United States v. Lawson, No. 14-3276. ................................................................ 10, 14, 20
United States v. Lazcano-Leon, No. 14-2036. .................................................................. 53
United States v. Lee, No. 12-1718 .................................................................................... 45
United States v. Lee, No. 14-2010. ................................................................................... 62
United States v. Lee, No. 14-2231. ................................................................................... 63
United States v. Leo, 14-2262. .......................................................................................... 33
United States v. Lewellen, No. 13-2321. .......................................................................... 13
United States v. Lewis, No. 14-2075. ............................................................................... 62
United States v. Lewis, No. 14-2324. ......................................................................... 64, 68
United States v. Lewis, No. 14-3635 ................................................................................ 67
United States v. Lewis, No. 14-3635. ............................................................................... 36
United States v. Lomax, et al., Nos. 14-2811, 14-3189, 14-3684. ......................... 9, 20, 45
United States v. Lomax, No. 14-2237. ............................................................................. 53
xi
United States v. Luckett, No. 14-1405. ............................................................................ 56
United States v. Mackin, No. 14-3602. .............................................................................. 4
United States v. Mannebach, No. 13-1787 .................................................................. 7, 44
United States v. Mares, No. 14-3110. .............................................................................. 68
United States v. Martin, No. 14-3187. ...................................................................... 31, 47
United States v. Mbaye, No. 14-3348. ................................................................... 9, 42, 56
United States v. McClain, No. 13-3008 ........................................................................... 20
United States v. McClain, No. 13-3008. ................................................................ 5, 19, 27
United States v. McClellan, No. 14-2449. ....................................................... 9, 20, 24, 26
United States v. McDowell, No. 13-1524 ........................................................................ 40
United States v. McGuire, No. 14-3545. ................................................................... 14, 16
United States v. McLeod, No. 14-2427 ............................................................................ 68
United States v. McMahan, No. 12-3291 ........................................................................ 42
United States v. Medina-Mora, No. 14-1420 .................................................................. 47
United States v. Medrano, No. 14-1100. ......................................................................... 22
United States v. Melendez & Lambert, Nos. 14-3590 & 15-1131 ................................... 56
United States v. Melendez & Lambert, Nos. 14-3590 & 15-1131. .................................. 56
United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, No. 14-3271. ............................................................. 22
United States v. Miller, No. 13-3062 ......................................................................... 49, 58
United States v. Miller, No. 13-3657. .............................................................................. 68
United States v. Miller, No. 14-2779 ............................................................................... 14
United States v. Miller, No. 14-3644. .............................................................................. 68
United States v. Miranda-Camarena, No. 14-1265. ........................................................ 49
United States v. Miranda-Sotolongo, No. 14-2753.................................................... 32, 62
United States v. Mohamed, No. 13-2368 ........................................................................... 9
United States v. Montgomery, No. 14-1648. ............................................................. 62, 68
United States v. Moore, No. 13-2905 ................................................................................. 9
United States v. Moore, No. 14-1859. .............................................................................. 53
United States v. Moore, No. 15-1272. ................................................................................ 3
United States v. Moran-Vazquez, No. 12-3288 ............................................................... 53
United States v. Morawski, No. 13-2046 ......................................................................... 37
United States v. Morris, No. 14-2242. ............................................................................. 53
United States v. Mullins, No. 14-1701. ................................................................. 9, 22, 24
United States v. Mullins, No. 14-3626 ............................................................................ 30
United States v. Munoz, No. 12-3377 ............................................................................. 57
United States v. Murphy, No. 15-1602............................................................................ 53
United States v. Natalizio & Abate, Nos. 14-1945 & 14-2434......................................... 9
United States v. Natalizio & Abate, Nos. 14-1945 & 14-2434........................................ 20
United States v. Navarro, No. 12-2606............................................................................ 16
United States v. Nayak, No. 14-1404. .............................................................................. 25
xii
United States v. Neal, No. 13-1536 .................................................................................. 59
United States v. Neal, No. 14-3473............................................................................ 65, 68
United States v. Nelson, No. 13-2648 ........................................................................... 37
United States v. Nicoson, No. 14-2557. ........................................................................... 39
United States v. Olivo, No. 13-3479. ............................................................................... 60
United States v. Olivo, No. 14-1140. ............................................................................... 34
United States v. Orlando, No. 14-2949............................................................................ 68
United States v. Orona-Ibarra, No. 15-1176. .................................................................. 21
United States v. Ortiz, No. 14-1521. ............................................................................... 68
United States v. Pantazelos, No. 13-1394 ........................................................................ 43
United States v. Parks, No. 13-1448. ............................................................................... 22
United States v. Parks, No. 14-3629 ................................................................................ 68
United States v. Parks, No. 14-3629. ............................................................................... 67
United States v. Patrick, No. 13-2463.............................................................................. 47
United States v. Patterson, No. 13-1517.......................................................................... 48
United States v. Paxton, No. 14-2913.............................................................................. 30
United States v. Paz, No. 14-2791. .................................................................................. 68
United States v. Pereira, No. 14-1301................................................................................ 9
United States v. Perez, No. 13-2446. ............................................................................... 56
United States v. Peter, No. 13-1094 ................................................................................. 29
United States v. Peters, No. 12-3830 ............................................................................... 32
United States v. Peterson, No. 14-3716 ............................................................... 17, 20, 37
United States v. Peterson, No. 14-3716. ............................................................................ 8
United States v. Phillip, No. 14-1354. ............................................................................. 60
United States v. Pickering, No. 14-3730. ......................................................................... 22
United States v. Poke, No. 14-2331.................................................................................. 56
United States v. Pons, No. 15-1193. ................................................................................ 42
United States v. Potter, No. 13-3537. .............................................................................. 37
United States v. Presley, No. 14-2704. ........................................................................ 8, 38
United States v. Printz, No. 14-1304. .............................................................................. 58
United States v. Pritchard, No. 13-2646 .................................................................... 58, 59
United States v. Pu, No. 15-1180. ............................................................................. 37, 58
United States v. Pulgar, No. 14-3503. ............................................................................. 27
United States v. Purham, No. 13-2916 ............................................................................ 41
United States v. Purham, No. 14-3424 ...................................................................... 57, 68
United States v. Purham, No. 14-3424. ........................................................................... 56
United States v. Purvis, No. 12-3856 .............................................................................. 43
United States v. Pust, No. 13-3747.............................................................................. 5, 25
United States v. Quinonez, No. 14-2096. ........................................................................ 39
United States v. Rahman, No. 13-1586...................................................................... 24, 29
xiii
United States v. Ramirez, No. 14-2145............................................................................ 13
United States v. Ramirez-Ortega, No. 13-1286 ............................................................... 48
United States v. Raney, No. 14-3265. ........................................................................ 64, 68
United States v. Reaves, No. 14-3554. ............................................................................. 33
United States v. Reyes, No. 13-3177 ................................................................................ 15
United States v. Ribota, No. 14-3026. .............................................................................. 12
United States v. Richardson, No. 14-1901. ...................................................................... 13
United States v. Rivas, No. 13-3526 .................................................................................. 6
United States v. Robertson, No. 13-3816. ........................................................................ 57
United States v. Rodriguez-Sanchez, No. 14-2456. ......................................................... 53
United States v. Rogers, No. 14-1553. ....................................................................... 37, 42
United States v. Rollins, No. 13-1731........................................................................ 35, 59
United States v. Roman, No. 14-3209.............................................................................. 32
United States v. Rynearson, No. 13-2064 ........................................................................ 59
United States v. Saenz, No. 13-2698................................................................................ 44
United States v. Sainz, No. 13-3585 ................................................................................ 58
United States v. Salazar-Rodriguez, et al., Nos. 14-1393, 14-1584, & 14-1589. ............ 25
United States v. Salazar-Rodriguez, Nos. 14-1393, 14-1584, & 14-1589 ........................ 5
United States v. Salazar-Rodriguez, Nos. 14-1393, 14-1584, & 14-1589. ..................... 23
United States v. Sands, No. 14-3409 ............................................................................... 28
United States v. Sands, No. 14-3409. .......................................................................... 5, 28
United States v. Sanford, No. 14-2860. ..................................................................... 32, 63
United States v. Santiago, No. 15-1364. .......................................................................... 56
United States v. Segal. No. 13-3847................................................................................. 57
United States v. Shannon, No. 14-3044. ...................................................................... 8, 27
United States v. Shields, No. 13-3726................................................................ 3, 6, 28, 35
United States v. Smart, No. 14-3053. ........................................................................ 51, 56
United States v. Smith, No. 14-1119. .......................................................................... 9, 10
United States v. Smith, No. 14-2982. .............................................................................. 34
United States v. Smith, No. 14-3442. ...................................................................... 7, 9, 31
United States v. Sparkman, No. 12-3683. ................................................................ 7, 9, 23
United States v. Sturdivant, No. 15-1059. ...................................................................... 31
United States v. Sulaski, No. 14-1520. ...................................................................... 61, 68
United States v. Sumrall, No. 14-2732. ........................................................................... 68
United States v. Sweeney, No. 14-3785. .............................................................. 33, 35, 68
United States v. Sylla, No. 14-2813. ................................................................................ 17
United States v. Szaflarski, No. 14-1540. ........................................................................ 14
United States v. Tate, No. 15-1186. ................................................................................... 2
United States v. Taylor, No. 12-2916 ................................................................................ 3
United States v. Taylor, No. 13-3469. ................................................................. 40, 42, 53
xiv
United States v. Taylor, No. 15-1005. ............................................................................. 68
United States v. Thomas & Taylor, Nos. 13-2814 & 13-3469. ......................... 4, 5, 13, 14
United States v. Thomas, No. 13-2814. ............................................................... 40, 53, 56
United States v. Thompson, No. 14-3262. ................................................................. 31, 34
United States v. Todd, No. 14-2836. ................................................................................ 68
United States v. Tolbert, No. 14-3586.............................................................................. 30
United States v. Trudeau, No. 14-1869 ..................................................................... 13, 19
United States v. Trudeau, No. 14-1869. .......................................................................... 20
United States v. Uriarte, No. 12-3747. ...................................................................... 23, 53
United States v. Uriarte, No. 13-1374. ....................................................................passim
United States v. Van Til, No. 15-1385............................................................................. 58
United States v. Vasquez-Hernandez, No. 14-3622. ................................................. 41, 53
United States v. Warner, No. 14-1330 ............................................................................. 54
United States v. Watts, No. 14-2944. ......................................................................passim
United States v. Webster, No. 13-1927. ................................................................... 5, 9, 11
United States v. West, No. 14-2415. ................................................................................ 35
United States v. West, No. 14-2514. ................................................................................ 11
United States v. White, No. 13-2943 ............................................................................... 33
United States v. Wilbourn & Sanders, Nos. 133715 & 13-3727..................................... 41
United States v. Wilbourn & Sanders, Nos. 13-3715 & 13-3727. .................. 9, 21, 26, 33
United States v. Wilbourn, No. 13-3610.......................................................................... 42
United States v. Williams, No. 15-1194. ......................................................................... 18
United States v. Woods, No. 15-1495. ............................................................................. 52
United States v. Yang, No. 14-3688. ............................................................................... 36
United States v. Zuniga-Galeana, No. 14-1994. .............................................................. 39
xv
Preface
This document is intended to allow trial and appellate counsel in criminal
cases in the Seventh Circuit to know what issues are pending, but not yet
decided, in the Seventh Circuit. To my knowledge, until now, no such publicly
available database existed.
The usefulness of such a database is threefold. First, when litigating a case
in the trial court, it is important to know if you have potential issues that are
currently pending on appeal. If the Court of Appeals issues an opinion which
creates an issue for you after your case has closed or is on direct appeal, you will
be saddled with plain error review on appeal or, worse if no notice of appeal was
filed, attempting to mount a collateral attack. On the other hand, if you see an
issue is pending on appeal and you raise it below, you will have a better
standard of review on appeal should the opinion ultimately issued be favorable
to your client. Second, when you raise an issue on appeal, it is useful to know if
there are other cases pending with the same or similar issue. This is especially
true for cases which raise a legal challenge, as opposed to an issue based upon
the application of the facts to well established law. For example, if you intend to
raise a challenge to the constitutionality of the residual clause of the Armed
Career Criminal Act, it would be good to know if the question has already been
raised and is pending in the court. With that knowledge, you could both review
the brief in the other pending case for assistance with crafting your own
argument and alert the court to the other cases which raise the same issue.
Finally, as alluded to already, it is always helpful to read pleadings drafted by
others on an issue you intend to raise. By doing so, you may find cases and
arguments which you can incorporate into your own argument.
A few notes on using this reference. Once an opinion is issued in a case, I
will of course remove it from the database. I will update the database weekly,
and it will be available on our website at http://ilc.fd.org. Pro se briefs are not
included unless such a brief clearly presents an important issue.
1
I.
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
II.
COMPETENCY
Whether the district court’s failure to order a competency examination under 18
U.S.C. § 4241 requires remand? United States v. Anzaldi, No. 14-1206.
III. COUNSEL
A.
Choice of
Whether the district court’s imposition of a pretrial, post-indictment restraint of
Mr. Kielar’s assets without affording him an adversary hearing violates due
process if Mr. Kielar can show a bona fide need to use the funds to obtain
counsel in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? United States v. Kielar,
No. 14-1390.
B.
Ineffective Assistance
Whether Mr. Charles was repeatedly abandoned by his post-trial counsel, and
his late motion for new trial therefore resulted from excusable neglect under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B)? United States v. Charles, No. 141530.
Did trial counsel’s representation of Mr. Miller at trial constitute ineffective
assistance of counsel? United States v. Miller, No. 14-2779.
C.
Motion for New Counsel
Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct any inquiry
into the reasons behind defense counsel’s motion to withdraw during the
restitution proceedings after Mr. Conour had been sentenced? United States v.
Conour, No. 13-3753 & 14-2629.
D.
Privileged information
E.
Waiver of
Whether the district court conducted a defective Faretta colloquy that resulted in
an erroneous decision to allow Mr. Tate to represent himself at trial? United
States v. Tate, No. 15-1186.
2
IV. COLLATERAL ATTACK
V.
CONTEMPT
VI. DISCOVERY
VII. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Whether the prosecution of Joseph Faulkner for drug dealing is barred by the
Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against Double Jeopardy since the identical
conduct was utilized by the prosecution and cited by the court in imposing a
more severe punishment in a previous case? United States v. Faulkner, No. 143332.
Whether the district court committed error when it denied Moore’s motion to
dismiss and bar re-trial in accordance with protections afforded by the Fifth
Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting Double Jeopardy?
United States v. Moore, No. 15-1272.
VIII.
A.
EVIDENCE AND TRIAL PROCEDURE
Brady
Whether the district court abused its discretion by not granting Mr. Dixon’s
motion for new trial based upon government counsel’s Brady violation of failing
to disclose showing a witness a photograph of Mr. Dixon prior to trial? United
States v. Dixon, No. 14-3225.
Whether a defendant has a due process right to be given the resources to pursue
evidence of a Brady violation? United States v. Chapman, No. 14-3311.
B.
Bruton
C.
Brady Material
Whether the failure of the government to disclose Brady material to Shields
violated his right to due process because the information was material to the
issue of the officer’s contention that Shields was found with a firearm? United
States v. Shields, No. 13-3726.
3
Whether the district court erred in denying Mackin’s oral motion for mistrial
where the government produced inaccurate information in discovery, and failed
to supplement or correct the inaccurate information until trial had commenced,
materially prejudicing Mackin’s defense? United States v. Mackin, No. 14-3602.
Whether the government deprived the defendants of a fair trial by suppressing
evidence of witness perjury, inconsistent statements, and prior bad acts of
government witnesses, and defendant statements, thereby committing various
Brady violations and whether the district court erred by failing to grant a new
trial? United States v. Brown, et al., Nos. 14-1363, 14-1364, 14-1426, and 14-2689.
D.
Closing argument
Whether the government violated Thomas and Taylor’s due process rights by
inappropriately commenting on the defendants’ subpoena power and
commenting on the lack of testimony from Arthur Vibanco? United States v.
Thomas & Taylor, Nos. 13-2814 & 13-3469.
Did the district court err by improperly allowing the government, during
summation, to argue that it would be unfair to allow Dvorkin to get out of the
responsibility of his actions, of his words, and of his choices by finding a verdict
of not guilty? United States v. Dvorkin, No. 14-2799.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants’
motion for new trial and in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine
whether the presence of approximately 20 uniformed firefighters during the
presentation of closing arguments presented an unacceptable risk of
impermissible factors coming into play? United States v. Thomas & Taylor, Nos.
13-2814 & 13-3469.
Whether the government’s rebuttal argument that their own expert was wrong
about the number of times Montes was shot necessitates a new trial on Count
Three and a resentencing on Count Two? United States v. Salazar-Rodriguez, Nos.
14-1393, 14-1584, & 14-1589
Whether the district court improperly restricted defense counsel’s closing
argument by prohibiting him from arguing his theory of defense, which was that
the person who put the gun into the console between the driver and passenger
seats was the person in the passenger seat, Katon Hunter, not Sands, who was in
the driver’s seat? United States v. Sands, No. 14-3409.
4
Whether Uriarte’s due process rights were violated when the government
commented on un-rebutted evidence of unexplained wealth during closing
argument? United States v. Uriarte, No. 13-1374.
E.
Co-conspirator statements
Whether the district court committed reversible error when it found the existence
of a conspiracy between a defendant and an alleged co-conspirator when there is
no evidence that the defendant had an agreement with the alleged coconspirator, knew of the scope or aims of the alleged conspiracy, or intended to
associate with the alleged conspiracy and abused its discretion when it admitted
the alleged co-conspirator’s statements pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
801(d)(2)(E)? United States v. Pust, No. 13-3747.
Whether the district court deprived Cardena of a fair trial by failing to rule on
the government’s motion to admit co-conspirators statements before trial? United
States v. Cardena, No. 12-3680.
F.
Confrontation, right to
Did the district court erroneously overrule McClain’s hearsay objection to a
government agent’s description of statements of confidential informants made to
him implicating McClain in drug trafficking, thereby committing reversible error
and violating McClain’s rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation
Clause? United States v. McClain, No. 13-3008.
Whether the district court erred by denying Mr. Kielar’s right to confront
witnesses and, when he was denied the right to confront a witness, the
prosecution impermissibly commented on the defendant’s failure to call
witnesses in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution? United States v. Kielar, No. 14-1390.
Whether the trial counsel violated Faruki’s right to confront witnesses by
preventing him from questioning a witness about directly contradictory, nonexculpatory prior statements made to the witnesses? United States v. Faruki, No.
14-2914.
Whether the district court erred in permitting the government to present
testimonial evidence of Western Union and MoneyGram records, including
summaries, in violation of the defendants Sixth Amendment rights to confront
and cross-examine witnesses? United States v. Brown, et al., Nos. 14-1363, 14-1364,
14-1426, and 14-2689.
5
G.
Confidential Informants
H.
Continuances
Whether the district court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion to continue
the jury trial were counsel stated she had two witnesses she was “trying to get in
line?” United States v. Shields, No. 13-3726.
I.
Cross-examination
Did the district court err in improperly restricting defense counsel’s crossexamination of the government’s key witness by refusing to permit trial counsel
to question the witness about past specific instances of misconduct? United States
v. Dvorkin, No. 14-2799.
Whether the district court violated Mr. Rivas’s Sixth Amendment rights and
abused its discretion by denying him the ability to cross-examine the fingerprint
identification expert regarding prior misapplications of the expert’s
methodology? United States v. Rivas, No. 13-3526
J.
Cumulative Errors
Whether the cumulative impact of the case agent’s totally irrelevant testimony (1) that he had never “prosecuted the wrong person,” (2) that Addison’s alleged
associate had possessed a firearm; and (3) that the surrounding neighborhood
did not contain other drug houses - violated Addison’s due process right to a fair
trial and a presumption of innocence, particularly when the case agent was
called by the government as both a law witness and an expert? United States v.
Addison, No. 14-2515.
K.
Demonstrative Evidence
L.
Entrapment
Whether when the government agent seeks out the defendant, uses a close
relationship to persuade the defendant to sell drugs at a discount is entrapment?
United States v. Chapman, No. 14-3311.
M.
Experts
Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony of the
government’s fingerprint expert who had not previously disclosed the number of
Galton points used to make the fingerprint identifications? United States v.
Saunders, No. 13-3863.
Whether the district court erred in permitting expert opinion testimony
regarding historical cell site analysis? United States v. Hill, No. 14-2019
6
N.
Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine
O.
Hearsay
Whether the district court erred when it denied Mr. Ferrell’s pre-trial motion to
admit a non-testifying witness’s statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
804(b)(3)? United States v. Ferrell, No. 14-2915
Whether the admission of the 911 recording and transcript, as well as the
testimony of officers Ledbetter and Ross repeating what Diego Shears had told
them, constituted inadmissible hearsay which amounted to plain error? United
States v. Hayden, No. 13-3750.
Whether, after potentially exculpatory evidence was destroyed, the district court
erred when it allowed a correctional officer to testify that Mr. Bell had confessed
to the murder he was on trial for? United States v. Bell, No. 14-3462.
Whether the district court erred by allowing the government to introduce
evidence of an out of court statement by an undercover agent to establish that
Mr. Amaya possessed a weapon? United States v. Amaya, No. 14-2617.
P.
Impeachment
Whether the district court erred by allowing improper impeachment evidence to
be introduced against the defendant? United States v. Smith, No. 14-3442.
Whether it was reversible error for a case agent to testify about the circumstances
of the victim’s identification where the victim did not forget or change his earlier
identification at trial? United States v. Sparkman, No. 12-3683.
Q.
Insufficient
Whether the government’s evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for
harboring when no evidence was presented to prove that McClellan intentionally
attempted to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection? United States v. McClellan,
No. 14-2449.
Whether the government’s evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of bank fraud and money laundering when,
among other things, it failed to prove that the defendant knew of a check’s
forgery before he deposited it? United States v. Ajayi, No. 14-2183.
7
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Presley’s motion for
new trial/supplemental motion for a mistrial? United States v. Presley, No. 142704.
Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the guilty
verdicts against Natalizio and Abate? United States v. Natalizio & Abate, Nos. 141945 & 14-2434.
Whether the evidence presented by the government insufficient to sustain
Shannon’s convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting possession with
intent to distribute a controlled substance? United States v. Shannon, No. 14-3044.
Whether the evidence as to Mr. Watts’s intent was insufficient? United States v.
Watts, No. 14-2944.
Whether the district court erred by denying the defendant’s motion for judgment
of acquittal because the government failed to prove the elements of kidnapping?
United States v. Smith, No. 14-3442.
Whether the evidence presented on Counts 1 through 23 was sufficient to
support a finding of intent to defraud or mislead and a conviction under 21
U.S.C. § 333(a)(2) on those counts? United States v. Dessart, No. 14-2686.
Whether the evidence is sufficient to uphold the conviction as an accessory after
the murder against Mr. Dixon? United States v. Dixon, No. 14-3470.
Whether the evidence on the element of premediation is sufficient to uphold the
conviction of first degree murder against Mr. Bell? United States v. Bell, No. 143462.
Because the government failed to prove that Peterson made any false statements
to banks, Peterson’s convictions on the M&I counts and the Greenwoods counts
must be vacated in favor of judgments of acquittal. United States v. Peterson, No.
14-3716.
Whether the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence
where Mbaye testified truthfully in his own defense and the prosecution did not
present credible testimony? United States v. Mbaye, No. 14-3348.
Whether the government’s evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of a
“hub-and-spoke” conspiracy for possession and distribution of more than 1,000
grams of heroin as charged in the fourth superseding indictment where Brandon
Lomax acted as the hub, Demond Glover and Anthony Lomax acted as the
8
spokes, and Spray’Em Auto Body was the epicenter? United States v. Lomax, et
al., Nos. 14-2811, 14-3189, 14-3684.
Whether the government’s evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of
the conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 1,000 grams or
more of heroin, as charged in count one of the fourth superseding indictment,
beyond a reasonable doubt? United States v. Lomax, et al., Nos. 14-2811, 14-3189,
14-3684.
R.
Line-ups/Identification
Whether the admission of Exhibit 376, a photo array with the alleged kidnapper’s
photograph emphasized and not identified by the victim until two years after the
kidnapping violated Due Process? United States v. Sparkman, No. 12-3683.
S.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Whether perjury, prosecutorial misconduct, and prosecution witness
intimidation by investigators denied Mullins a right to a fair trial? United States v.
Mullins, No. 14-1701.
Whether the district court erred in failing to grant a mistrial were the prosecutor
introduced prejudicial evidence against Wilbourn after he had rested his case
and in violation of the court’s instruction? United States v. Wilbourn & Sanders,
Nos. 13-3715 & 13-3727.
The government may employ undercover tactics to infiltrate an ongoing criminal
enterprise, but it is outrageous conduct to manufacture crime by creating one.
Mr. Smith was not part of any criminal enterprise, and had no involvement in
drug trafficking. Yet the Indianapolis Police and the ATF created an entirely
fictitious drug cartel solely for the purpose of soliciting his participation and
manufacturing of drug crime. Was the government’s conduct outrageous?
United States v. Smith, No. 14-1119.
When the government plays an excessive role in investigating, planning, and
controlling the criminal act, its conduct is outrageous. The Indianapolis police
and the ATF instigated a fake drug crime, planned the entire scheme, and had
complete control of the operation. Was the government’s conduct outrageous?
United States v. Smith, No. 14-1119.
Did the government breach the proffer agreement to not use statements or
information provided by Jenkins in its case in chief against him, when its agents
9
testified that they went to Jenkins’s house and searched for the gun and found it,
and then the government offered the gun as evidence? If so, does the violation
require a new trial? United States v. Jenkins, No. 14-2898.
Whether the district court erred by allowing the government to introduce
evidence that Cardena agreed to cooperate with law enforcement officials?
United States v. Cardena, No. 12-3680.
Whether Uriarte was unfairly prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct during his
trial through the introduction of known false testimony and the bringing of
future witnesses to the courtroom window during trial to identify the
defendants? United States v. Uriarte, No. 13-1374.
Whether suppressed evidence of police misconduct raises significant questions
about the presented fingerprint evidence and overall investigative methods in
this case and materially undermines confidence in the jury’s verdict? United
States v. Lawson, No. 14-3276.
T.
Relevance
U.
Right to be Present for Trial
The Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clauses of the United States
Constitution grant a criminal defendant the right to be present at trial. After
Daniels gave non-responsive answers to judicial questioning at three of fifteen
pretrial hearings, the district court barred Daniels from attending his trial. Did
the district court’s decision violate Daniels’s constitutional rights? United States
v. Daniels, No. 13-2078.
V.
Right to Present a Defense
Whether the lower court erred in excluding Blagojevich’s defense that he had a
good faith belief that his conduct comported with the law. United States v.
Blagojevich, No. 11-3853
Whether the district court erred in not admitting evidence related to West’s
mental Illinois and low intelligence when the proffered evidence did not speak to
the general intent element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), nor to his consent of the search of
the house on Loomis Street in Chicago, but instead to the trustworthiness of
West’s statements to police after his arrest, especially when the government did
not object to admission of the evidence proffered for this purpose? United States
v. West, No. 14-2514.
10
Does a district court abuse its discretion by excluding, on relevance grounds,
emails regarding the defendant’s nascent business when the government argued
that the business did not exist and relied on that fact to prove elements of the
charged crimes? United States v. Ajayi, No. 14-2183.
Whether the district court erred by denying Jones’s request to reopen the
evidence to exercise his Constitutional right to testify? United States v. Jones, No.
14-3727.
W.
Rules of Evidence
1.
109 (Foundation)
Whether a recording on CD that cannot be compared to the initial recording
violates the best evidence rule? United States v. Chapman, No. 14-3311.
Whether the district court erred in permitting the government to present
evidence of Western Union and MoneyGram records, including summaries, with
inadequate foundation? United States v. Brown, et al., Nos. 14-1363, 14-1364, 141426, and 14-2689.
2.
401 (Relevant Evidence)
Whether the improper admission of the illegally-seized gun, case, and
ammunition at trial contributed to Mr. Charles’s conviction by corroborating Ms.
Summerise’s testimony for Judge Andersen and, as such, was not harmless?
United States v. Charles, No. 14-1530.
3.
403 (Exclusion of Relevant Evidence)
Was evidence that two guns were found in a hidden compartment in defendant’s
car following an unrelated traffic stop erroneously admitted and unduly
prejudicial? United States v. Dean, No. 13-2982.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence under Rule
403 of expenditures on luxury items following receipt of his tax returns in an
effort to show defendant’s mental state in submitting the allegedly false returns?
United States v. Latin & DeSalvo, Nos. 13-3844 & 13-3820.13-1927
4.
404(b)(Character Evidence)
Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting irrelevant and
prejudicial evidence of Ms. Anzaldi’s fee structuring? United States v. Anzaldi,
No. 14-1206.
11
Whether Herbert Shriver’s testimony served as impressible propensity evidence
in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)? United States v. Ferrell, No. 142915.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of audiotapes of Faruki
making uncharged, false statements to a third party that were almost identical to
the ones for which he was charged? United States v. Faruki, No. 14-2914.
Whether the district court erred when it allowed the government to introduce
evidence of unexplained wealth without any corroborating tax returns or
evidence? United States v. Uriarte, No. 13-1374.
Whether the district court erred by denying Jones’s motion for new trial based on
the government’s improper and prejudicial use of Rule 404(b) evidence during
its closing argument? United States v. Jones, No. 14-3727
5.
605 (Judge’s Competency as a Witness)
609 (Prior Convictions)
6.
Whether the district court erred in permitting the government to introduce
prejudicial evidence of Erramilli’s remote prior convictions for battery and sexual
abuse? United States v. Erramilli, No. 13-3095.
7.
702 (Testimony by an Expert)
X.
Shackles at Trial
Whether the district court abused its discretion and deprived Mr. Dixon of the
presumption of innocence when it ordered him shackled at trial? United States v.
Dixon, No. 14-3470.
Y.
Selective Prosecution
Whether the district court erred in denying Mr. Ribota’s motion to dismiss based
on prosecutorial vindictiveness? United States v. Ribota, No. 14-3026.
Z.
Self Incrimination
AA. Severance/Joinder
Did the district court erroneously deny defendant’s motion to sever his trial from
his co-defendants? United States v. Dean, No. 13-2982.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8 permits joinder of defendants in a single
indictment if the defendants “are alleged to have participated in the same act or
transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or
12
offenses.” The indictment in this case charged three defendants with counts
stemming from three separate bank robberies and did not charge a conspiracy or
contain any factual allegations connecting the robberies or defendants. Did the
district court err in refusing to sever the defendants’ trial? United States v. Daniels,
No. 13-2078.
Did the district court’s denial of Lewellen’s severance motion operate to deny
him a fair and reliable trial? United States v. Lewellen, No. 13-2321.
BB. Speedy Trial
Whether the government violated Mr. Trudeau’s Speedy Trial Act Rights,
permitting 393 days to pass before he was brought to trial? United States v.
Trudeau, No. 14-1869
Whether Ramirez’s right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 was violated
where the district court continued the matter for six months because of its
congested docket? United States v. Ramirez, No. 14-2145.
Whether the district court erred in denying Ramirez’s motion to dismiss for
violation of the Speedy Trial Act? United States v. Ramirez, No. 14-2145.
Whether Mr. Khatib’s right to a speedy trial was violated when more than
seventy days of non-excludable time passed between the date of his initial
appearance on the indictment and his bench trial? United States v. Khatib, No. 142216.
CC. Stipulations
Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting a stipulation describing
the criminal actions of persons not defendants in this case? United States v.
Saunders, No. 13-3863.
DD. Witnesses
Whether the government’s introduction of statements obtained from Montrell
Taylor through coercion into evidence at the 2012 trial violated Thomas and
Taylor’s due process rights to a fair trial? United States v. Thomas & Taylor, Nos.
13-2814 & 13-3469.
Whether the government improperly called Tjorra Payton, knowing that she had
no memory of the events for which she was being called to testify, only to
provide a backdoor for the government to present the substance of her grand
jury testimony to the jury? United States v. Thomas & Taylor, Nos. 13-2814 & 133469.
13
Did the district court err when it determined that Agent Peasley’s false testimony
as to the determination of license plate numbers and bank account balances was
harmless and did not impact Mr. Miller’s right to a fair trial? United States v.
Miller, No. 14-2779
Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Mr. Sawyer’s legal
conclusion that Mr. Watts’s offense conduct was aggravated battery? United
States v. Watts, No. 14-2944.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior
encounter between Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Watts? United States v. Watts, No. 142944.
Mr. Hawkins’s co-defendant gave the government a statement exculpating Mr.
Hawkins. Was it error to exclude this statement from the jury’s consideration?
United States v. Hawkins, No. 14-2210.
Whether Mr. Lawson’s convictions for offenses involving the use of a firearm
cannot be sustained by the limited eyewitness testimony presented? United
States v. Lawson, No. 14-3276.
EE. Wiretaps
IX. FORFEITURE
Whether Szaflarski had property or rights to property to which the judgment of
forfeiture could attach? United States v. Szaflarski, No. 14-1540.
X.
GUILTY PLEAS & PLEA AGREEMENTS
A.
Appeal Waiver
Whether the waiver of rights in the written plea agreement bars Ms. McGuire
from appealing from the denial of her Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea? United
States v. McGuire, No. 14-3545.
Whether the Court may reach the merits of these issues despite the appeal
waiver, as Haslam challenges the enforceability of the entire plea agreement, and
the government has been directed not to enforce waivers of ineffective assistance
of counsel claims? United States v. Haslam, No. 14-2641.
14
B.
By Magistrate
C.
Competency
D.
Factual Basis
Whether a factual basis for an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) plea was inadequate when the
record is devoid of facts explicitly establishing actual, detailed knowledge of
firearms usage and an opportunity to withdraw once the full extent of the crime
was known, and instead relies on possible foreseeability of firearms? United
States v. Adams, No. 14-2579.
E.
Interference with by judge
Whether the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 when
it repeatedly commented on the plea negotiations, including warning the
defendant that he should work with his lawyer because he faced “very, very
serious” charges and the government was willing to dismiss most of them?
United States v. Jones, No. 14-1665.
F.
Knowing and Voluntary
Whether this Court must remand the case to the district court with instructions
that Mr. Henderson be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to the indictment
because he did not enter it knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily? United
States v. Henderson, No. 14-2297.
Whether, in light of the unlawful detention order under 18 U.S.C. § 4241, Mr.
Brown’s Alford plea was not entered voluntarily, when the circumstances
indicate that the plea was entered into primarily to seek relief from the detention
order? United States v. Brown, No. 14-2524
Whether the record shows that Haslam entered the plea agreement and his guilty
plea unknowingly and unintelligently as a result of the ineffective assistance of
defense counsel inducing Haslam to plead guilty upon the belief the government
was bound to a promise to withhold evidence of battery and confinement?
United States v. Haslam, No. 14-2641.
G.
Withdrawal
Whether this case must be remanded with instructions to allow Mr. Henderson
to withdraw his guilty plea because it was not entered knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily? United States v. Henderson, No. 13-3861.
15
Whether this case must be remanded to allow the district court to determine
whether Mr. Henderson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be granted?
United States v. Henderson, No. 13-3861.
Whether the error made by the district court in accepting Mr. Henderson’s guilty
plea to the indictment instead of the information was harmless and could
prejudice him in the future? United States v. Henderson, No. 13-3861.
Did the district court err when it denied Adrian Collins’s first and second
motions to withdraw his plea without a hearing? United States v. Collins, No. 143427
Whether the district court erred in failing to allow Ms. McGuire to withdraw her
guilty plea because she entered it without full knowledge of its serious
consequences to her ability to support herself for the rest of her life? United States
v. McGuire, No. 14-3545.
H.
Breach
Whether Mr. Navarro is entitled to resentencing and specific performance of the
government’s promise in the plea agreement to recommend a sentence within
the properly calculated guidelines range due to the government’s substantial
breach of the plea agreement by recommending a sentence significantly higher
than the applicable guidelines range at sentencing? United States v. Navarro, No.
12-2606.
Whether the district court clearly erred by making a finding of fact that the
government had not promised through the plea agreement to withhold evidence
of battery and confinement and, on that finding, erred in ruling that the
government had not breached that agreement? United States v. Haslam, No. 142641.
XI. INDICTMENT
Whether the government’s second superseding indictment was multiplicitous or
duplicitous when it impermissibly charged Jones - over three separate counts based solely on the location when authorities found the firearms when the
evidence showed that the defendant possessed the firearms as a single course of
conduct? United States v. Jones, No. 14-1665.
Whether the indictment was impermissibly amended and suffered a fatal
variance when the government’s evidence tried to establish a broader and
16
categorically different scheme than the one alleged in the indictment and where
that scheme was not linked to the defendant? United States v. Ajayi, No. 14-2183.
Whether the government’s five bank fraud charges were multiplicitous when
they were based on five separate withdrawals of funds rather than the single
deposit of a check on which the funds were drawn? United States v. Ajayi, No. 142183.
Whether the federal DNA tolling statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied
to Mr. Sylla? United States v. Sylla, No. 14-2813.
Peterson is entitled to a new trial on all counts based on the trial court’s refusal to
sever the retirement plan count even after finding that it seemed like it was
intended to antagonize the jury. United States v. Peterson, No. 14-3716
Whether the Court’s dismissal of the conspiracy charged in Count 1, based on
prosecutorial misconduct, required the concomitant dismissal of Counts 8, and 45, 16-18, because the conspiracy charged in Count 1 was a necessary element of
these remaining counts? United States v. Freeman, No. 15-1170.
XII. INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS
XIII.
JURY ISSUES
A.
Selection
Whether Uriarte was unfairly prejudiced by the for cause removal of Juror 24
despite Juror 24’s claims that he could be impartial? United States v. Uriarte, No.
13-1374.
B.
Batson
Did the district court err by overruling Mr. Cruse’s objection to the government’s
exercise of peremptory challenges against two African-American jurors where
the government did not offer plausible race-neutral reasons for the strikes and
the district court did not properly evaluate the government’s stated reasons
under the totality of the circumstances? United States v. Cruse, No. 13-2929.
Did the district court err in denying Williams’s Batson challenge by allowing the
government to submit the justifications for its peremptory strikes in camera,
denying Williams the opportunity to respond and overlooking the reasons that
17
the purported justifications were pretextual? United States v. Williams, No. 151194.
C.
Challenges for Cause
Whether the lower court erred in failing to strike a biased juror. United States v.
Blagojevich, No. 11-3853
Whether the district court erred in refusing to voir dire jurors who had made up
their minds about the guilt of some defendants mid-trial? United States v.
Freeman, No. 15-1170.
D.
Deliberations
Was it error not to conduct a hearing to determine whether a juror’s verdict was
unduly influenced after she complained of being bullied and was seen outside
the jury room during deliberations? United States v. Dean, No. 13-2982.
A panic attack forced a juror to leave the deliberation room. Hours after
rendering the verdict, that same juror informed the district court that she had
been “bullied” and “railroaded” into reaching her verdict. At a post-trial
hearing, the district court noted that it was unclear whether the juror was
exposed to external influences or threats of physical violence. Did the district
court err in refusing to undertake a limited inquiry into the source and severity
of the reported bullying? United States v. Daniels, No. 13-2078.
Whether the district court erred when it issued the Silvern instruction after
receiving notice that the jury was deadlocked on some counts and with
knowledge that one juror was crying due to the length of the deliberations?
United States v. Uriarte, No. 13-1374.
Whether the district court erred by not holding a hearing when it learned that a
juror had broken into tears during jury deliberations out of concern that she
would lose her job if deliberations did not conclude soon? United States v. Uriarte,
No. 13-1374.
Did the district court err by denying Williams’s motion for a mistrial and motion
for a new trial based on a substantial likelihood of jury coercion due to (a) the
jury polling process, (b) the supplemental jury instruction given by the district
court, (c) the short passage of time between the supplemental instruction and the
return of the verdict, and (d) the jury’s communication with the district court?
United States v. Williams, No. 15-1194.
18
E.
Instructions
Since the evidence against McClain consisted almost entirely of purchases and
sales of drugs, was it error for the district court to refuse to charge the jury, as
requested by McClain, that a buyer-seller relationship is not a conspiracy?
United States v. McClain, No. 13-3008.
Whether the jury was misinstructed as to the law fraud, extortion and bribery as
they relate to political deal-making and solicitation of campaign contributions.
United States v. Blagojevich, No. 11-3853
Did the district court err by denying Mr. Cruse’s request for a standard “buyerseller” jury instruction where the evidence that he was a member of a conspiracy
principally consisted of testimony that he engaged in arms’ length drug
transactions? United States v. Cruse, No. 13-2929.
Was it plain error for the district court to instruct the jury that the amount of
cocaine involved in Cruse’s offense included, without limitation, “all amounts
involved in all acts of the co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the
conspiracy?” United States v. Cruse, No. 13-2929.
Was it plain error for the district court to instruct the jury that the amount of
cocaine involved in McClain’s offense included, without limitation, “all amounts
involved in all acts of the co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the
conspiracy?” United States v. McClain, No. 13-3008
Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on
buyer-seller relationships, when the jury could have reasonably concluded that
Mr. Haynes was only engaged in a buyer-seller relationship? United States v.
Haynes, No. 13-3617.
Whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the required
mental state was willfulness? United States v. Latin & DeSalvo, Nos. 13-3844 & 133820.
Whether the district court improperly permitted the jury to find willfulness
without evidence that Trudeau actually knew that his conduct was unlawful?
United States v. Trudeau, No. 14-1869
Whether a new trial is warranted because the district court misapplied the
willfulness standard? United States v. Trudeau, No. 14-1869.
19
Whether the district court committed plain error when it failed to instruct the
jury on the mens rea element of harboring? United States v. McClellan, No. 14-2449.
Whether Abate was denied a fair trial when the district court allowed the jury to
read and use an unfair and unredacted copy of the indictment during jury
deliberations? United States v. Natalizio & Abate, Nos. 14-1945 & 14-2434.
Whether the district court plainly erred in failing to give a pattern jury
instruction required when the government charges bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §
1344(2)? United States v. Ajayi, No. 14-2183.
Whether the district court committed reversible error by misconstruing this
Court’s precedent in Vallery and providing an inaccurate jury instruction on
assault? United States v. Watts, No. 14-2944.
Whether the district court erred in not using the Seventh Circuit Pattern
Instruction 6.10? United States v. Clarke, No. 14-3515.
Whether the jury was properly instructed as to the definition of “prescription
drug?” United States v. Dessart, No. 14-2686.
Whether the district court should have given an instruction in addition to the
pattern instructions for the Circuit? United States v. Chapman, No. 14-3311.
Peterson is entitled to a new trial on all of the bank counts because the court gave
a prejudicial instruction about a theory of defense that was never raised, and
which obscured and undermined the real defense. United States v. Peterson, No.
14-3716
Whether the district court’s jury instruction explaining liability for aiding and
abetting a § 924(c) offense erroneously permitted conviction without proof of
advance knowledge of an accomplices use of a firearm? United States v. Lawson,
No. 14-3276.
Whether it was error when the trial court refused to give an instruction to the
jury about the difference between a conspiracy and a buy/sell relationship when
the jury could have rationally found that Anthony Lomax was in a buy/sell
relationship with Brandon Lomax instead of a conspiracy? United States v. Lomax,
et al., Nos. 14-2811, 14-3189, 14-3684.
20
F.
Mistrial
Whether the district court erred in failing to voir dire jurors mid-trial who were
overheard expressing opinion as to the defendants’ guilt? United States v.
Wilbourn & Sanders, Nos. 13-3715 & 13-3727.
XIV.
OFFENSES
A.
8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry)
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s section
1326(d) motion to dismiss based upon his two prior attorneys’ failure to perfect
his direct appeal and subsequent motion to reopen/reconsider to the BIA
effectively terminating his right to judicial review? United States v. Herrera-Valdez,
No. 14-3534.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to recuse itself even
after learning that it had played some role in the underlying issue of defendant’s
prior removal and that the lawfulness of such removal was the very question
presented before the court? United States v. Herrera-Valdez, No. 14-3534.
Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment
for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)? United States v. Larios-Buentello, No.
15-1312.
Whether venue was proper to prosecute Mr. Orona-Ibarra in the Central District
of Illinois after he was “found” in the state of Texas by ICE agents and never left
federal custody or the knowledge of immigration authorities before his
prosecution in that district? United States v. Orona-Ibarra, No. 15-1176.
B.
18 U.S.C. § 373
Should Dvorkin’s conviction be overturned where he renounced his intention to
commit solicitation (murder) in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 373(b)? United States
v. Dvorkin, No. 14-2799.
Was the evidence sufficient to prove that Dvorkin solicited another to commit
murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 373(a) and 1958(a)? United States v. Dvorkin,
No. 14-2799.
21
C.
18 U.S.C. § 401(3)
Whether the district court erred in finding Pickering in criminal contempt of
court for her failure to appear for jury duty because the evidence did not support
a finding that she willfully disobeyed or resisted the summons for jury duty?
United States v. Pickering, No. 14-3730.
D.
18 U.S.C. § 666
Whether the government’s evidence was sufficient to prove Mullins violated the
bribery statute? United States v. Mullins, No. 14-1701.
E.
18 U.S.C. § 915 (Foreign Diplomat)
Whether the evidence was insufficient to support Mr. Bey’s conviction for
pretending to be a diplomatic official of a foreign government under 18 U.S.C. §
915, when the evidence clearly established that he represented himself to be a
Moorish American diplomat from the Mu’ur Republic, which is not a foreign
government? United States v. Hillman, No. 13-3689.
F.
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
Whether any rational trier of fact could have convicted Mr. Parks of the offense
of being a felon in possession of a weapon given the inconsistencies in the
testimony of the government’s primary witness, the lack of physical evidence,
and the implausibility of the theory of the case posited by the government at
trial? United States v. Parks, No. 13-1448.
In order to completely restrict an individual’s Second Amendment right, as
Congress did in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), the government must show at least a
substantial relation to a compelling justification. At its passage, Congress
provided no findings or statistics with regard to the law’s purpose, nor have they
to date. Can the complete ban in § 922(g)(5)(A) survive strict or heightened
scrutiny without congressional findings or a sufficient tie to an ongoing
compelling government interest? United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, No. 14-3271.
The First, Second, and Fourth Amendments all use the term “the people.” The
First and Fourth Amendments apply to undocumented aliens. Does the
concurrently passed and identically phrased Second Amendment also
encompass undocumented aliens? United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, No. 14-3271.
G.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(use of weapon during drug or violent
felony)
Whether the district court violated Uriarte’s right to trial by jury when the court
found that his conviction under Count Eleven for possessing a firearm was a
22
second or subsequent conviction and sentenced him to a consecutive 25 year
term of imprisonment? United States v. Uriarte, No. 12-3747.
Whether the district court violated Uriarte’s right to trial by jury when the court
found that he had brandished a firearm and sentenced him to a consecutive
seven year term of imprisonment? United States v. Uriarte, No. 12-3747.
Whether the district court erred in sentencing Sparkman to a mandatory
consecutive sentence of 25 years under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for a successive
conviction where (1) there was no interval of punishment between the two §
924(c) offenses and (2) the district court and not the jury found that it was a
subsequent conviction? United States v. Sparkman, No. 12-3683.
Whether the jury and not the district court was required to find that the
defendant “brandished” a firearm during a kidnapping to justify an increase in
his mandatory minimum sentence from five to seven years? United States v.
Sparkman, No. 12-3683.
Whether the factual basis for an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) plea is inadequate when the
record is devoid of facts explicitly establishing actual, detailed knowledge of
firearms usage and an opportunity to withdraw once the full extent of the crime
was known, and instead relies on possible foreseeability of firearms? United
States v. Adams, No. 14-2579
Whether the government presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Juan Amaya possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime when the only evidence that a firearm was possessed was the
opinion of an undercover agent and no evidence at all was introduced that the
objected furthered a drug crime? United States v. Amaya, No. 14-2617.
Whether the government presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Mr. Amaya committed an assault with a dangerous
weapon to maintain or further his position within the Latin Kings? United States
v. Amaya, No. 14-2617.
H.
18 U.S.C. § 956
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 956 is applicable to appellants Manuel Leija-Sanchez and
Gerardo Salazar-Rodriguez where the evidence is clear that they did not “within
the jurisdiction of the United States” conspire to kill Montes or Bruno in a foreign
country? United States v. Salazar-Rodriguez, Nos. 14-1393, 14-1584, & 14-1589.
23
I.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements)
Did the government fail to prove a false statement charge where the basis of the
charge was the defendant’s statement that he did not keep records on his laptop,
but where agents later discovered such records on a laptop owned by the
defendant, but the government also failed to establish what the defendant’s
laptop looked like or how many laptops he had? United States v. Rahman, No. 131586
Whether the defendant’s statement in a false statement prosecution involved
official, authorized functions of a federal agency where the defendant’s
statements were made to a state fire investigator at the scene of a fire where a
federal official was also present on the scene, but to whom the alleged statement
was not made? United States v. Rahman, No. 13-1586
J.
18 U.S.C. § 1017
Whether the evidence was insufficient to support Mr. Bey’s conviction under 18
U.S.C. § 1017 for using the seal of the Department of Justice, knowing it had been
fraudulently affixed to his identification card, when the evidence showed that
the card featured a counterfeit facsimile of the seal rather than the actual seal
itself? United States v. Hillman, No. 13-3689.
K.
18 U.S.C. § 1028A (aggravated identity theft)
Harris was convicted of conspiracy, credit card fraud, and identity theft. Much
of the evidence against him consisted of testimony by co-defendants who were
related or friends, and obtained via plea agreement? Was the evidence sufficient
to convict? United States v. Harris, No. 14-1846.
L.
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud)
Whether the government’s evidence was sufficient to establish McClellan’s
participation in a scheme to defraud or that he possessed the requisite intent to
defraud, both of which are required elements of mail and wire fraud offenses?
United States v. McClellan, No. 14-2449.
M.
18 U.S.C. § 1343(wire fraud)
Whether the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient under the proper principles
of law to prove wire fraud? United States v. Mullins, No. 14-1701.
Whether the verdict below is supported by evidence sufficient to support a
reasonable inference of an intent to defraud, an essential element for a conviction
for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, where the only evidence is that the
defendant participated in an enterprise controlled by another, repeated the
24
enterprise’s misrepresentations, and had little indication that the enterprise was
anything but legitimate? United States v. Pust, No. 13-3747.
Whether the government proved Faruki’s guilt in counts 1, 2, and 3 where it
failed to offer proof that Faruki made false or material statements? United States
v. Faruki, No. 14-2914.
Whether the government proved Faruki’s guilt in counts 4, 5, and 7 where it
alleged wire transfers that were made after the scheme was completed and
Faruki did not cause them to occur? United States v. Faruki, No. 14-2914.
N.
18 U.S.C. § 1346 (Honest Services Fraud)
O.
18 U.S.C. § 1347 (health care fraud)
P.
18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking)
Q.
18 U.S.C. § 1832 (Economic espionage)
R.
18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act)
S.
18 U.S.C. § 1959
Whether the district court’s order dismissing Count Three of the indictment for
lack of territorial jurisdiction, which was reversed by this court in United States v.
Leija-Sanchez, 602 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2010), was correct as a matter of law in light
of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank
Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010)? United States v. Salazar-Rodriguez, et al., Nos. 14-1393, 141584, & 14-1589.
Whether, because 18 U.S.C. § 1959 is ambiguous as to its territorial reach, the rule
of lenity compels the narrower construction which would preclude prosecution
of Mexican nationals for the murder of another Mexican national in Mexico?
United States v. Salazar-Rodriguez, et al., Nos. 14-1393, 14-1584, & 14-1589.
Whether, because there is no extraterritorial jurisdiction under Illinois law for a
murder committed in Mexico, a resentencing on Count Two is required? United
States v. Salazar-Rodriguez, et al., Nos. 14-1393, 14-1584, & 14-1589.
T.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(RICO)
Whether the government’s evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for
money laundering when no evidence was presented to support McClellan’s
25
knowledge that the transaction involved criminally derived property or that the
property was derived from mail fraud? United States v. McClellan, No. 14-2449.
Whether the government presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Mr. Amaya participated in the affairs of an enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering when it failed to prove two charged predicate
acts during the period of time that it alleged Mr. Amaya to be a member of that
enterprise? United States v. Amaya, No. 14-2617
U.
18 U.S.C. § 2113
Whether the district court erred in submitting the charge of armed bank robbery
to the jury by ruling that a butane lighter is a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(d)? United States v. Dixon, No. 14-3225.
V.
18 U.S.C. § 2250 (Failure to Register)
W.
18 U.S.C. § 2342(a) (Contraband Cigarette Trafficking
Act)
X.
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (inducing a minor re: sex)
Y.
18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v)(lascivious exhibition of
genitals)
Z.
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(Controlled Substances)
Did the district court violate Bounds’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury
when it reconsidered the jury’s verdict on the quantity of narcotics involved and
found an amount more than two times greater than the jury for purposes of
sentencing? United States v. Bounds, No. 13-3910.
AA. 21 U.S.C. § 843 (Phone Count)
Whether the phone counts should be vacated where they are premised on
facilitating a drug conspiracy which has been dismissed? United States v.
Wilbourn & Sanders, Nos. 13-3715 & 13-3727.
BB. 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Controlled Substances Conspiracy)
Should the district court have granted McClain’s motion for judgment of
acquittal on the ground that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
sustain a conviction under the one-count indictment charging a single sixteenyear conspiracy to possess and distribute illegal drugs, and that the evidence
might have proved a series of individual drug transactions, or multiple
26
conspiracies (few of which involved McClain), but did not establish a single
conspiracy? United States v. McClain, No. 13-3008.
Whether the evidence was insufficient to support Mr. Haynes’s conviction for
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, when it only showed a buyerseller relationship between Mr. Haynes, a seller of pseudoephedrine, and other
individuals who used and manufactured methamphetamine? United States v.
Haynes, No. 13-3617.
Was the evidence presented by the government insufficient to sustain
defendant’s convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting possession with
intent to distribute a controlled substance? United States v. Shannon, No. 14-3044.
Whether the government presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Cardena conspired to possess with intent to distribute a
controlled substance? United States v. Cardena, No. 12-3680.
Whether the government proved a criminal agreement between Pulgar and his
drug customer beyond that shown by individual sales agreements or did it prove
merely a buyer-seller arrangement? United States v. Pulgar, No. 14-3503.
CC. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(1)(A) (Anti-Kickback Statute)
DD. 42 U.S.C. § 7413 (Environmental Offeses)
EE.
42 U.S.C. § 16911(d)(SORNA)
XV.
RECUSAL
XVI.
RESTITUTION
XVII.
RETROACTIVE GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS
Whether, in light of United States v. Wren, 706 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2013), the district
court erred when it denied Mr. Freeman’s motion to reduce sentence, filed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)? United States v. Freeman, No. 14-1362.
27
XVIII.
A.
SEARCH & SEIZURE
Arrest
1.
In the home
Probable cause to
2.
Whether the officer violated the Fourth Amendment by seizing Shields on the
basis of a condition that was not illegal and the district court erred when it
denied the motion to suppress? United States v. Shields, No. 13-3726.
Was the October 7, 2005, search of defendant’s car conducted in violation of his
Fourth Amendment rights? United States v. Dean, No. 13-2982.
Whether Mr. Gray’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence should have
been granted where there was no probable case for the arrest and further the
subsequent warrantless search of seized cell phones was impermissible in light of
Riley v. California? United States v. Gray, No. 13-1788
Police were called because a woman in a bank was attempting a fraudulent
transaction. Moments later, officers arrived and immediately arrested Harris,
who was sitting in his car outside the bank. Harris was handcuffed and in the
back of a police car as other officers arrested the actual suspect. Was the
detention and arrest of Harris legal? United States v. Harris, No. 14-1846.
Where the arresting officer’s detention of Sands was based entirely upon the
observing officer’s erroneous conclusion that his limited observations constituted
probable cause to detain Sands, whether the district court erred in ruling, as a
matter of law, that its determination of probable cause should be based upon
what the arresting officer believed rather than what the observing officer had
observed? United States v. Sands, No. 14-3409.
Whether the district court erred in denying Sands’s motion to quash his arrest
and to suppress all evidence seized during a search incident to his unlawful
arrest because he was effectively detained? United States v. Sands, No. 14-3409
B.
Canine Searches
Did the District Court erroneously deny Peter’s motion to suppress evidence of
marijuana and a hand gun seized by the Indiana State Police from his home and
garage by determining that the dog sniff conducted inside his fenced in yard on
the front porch and at the front and back doors of his house was not a search
28
under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant? United States v. Peter, No. 131094.
Whether the district court erred in reversing its decision to reopen Mr. Herman’s
suppression hearing in light of Florida v. Jardines? United States v. Herman, No. 133210.
Whether the government, by entering Mr. Herman’s locked secure apartment
building without consent, and conducting a dog sniff without a warrant, at the
front door of his apartment, violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures under Florida v. Jardines? United States v.
Herman, No. 13-3210.
C.
Consent
Did investigators of an arson exceed the scope of the defendant’s consent when
they searched an where they knew the fire did not start for circumstantial
evidence of arson, where a cause-and-origin search is limited intrusion that does
not extend to determining criminal responsibility? United States v. Rahman, No.
13-1586
Whether the district court erred in denying the motions to suppress evidence in
determining there was actual and apparent authority by a third party, consent
was granted prior to entry into the home, contraband was in plain view, and
there was no promise of immunity from prosecution in exchange for a gun?
United States v. Brandon, No. 13-3471.
Did the district court err when it failed to determine whether the consent to
search the residence was tainted by the initial entry and protective sweep of the
defendant’s residence? United States v. Contreas, No. 15-1279.
D.
Curtilage
Did the District Court, after finding that the police intrusion within the curtilage
of Peter’s dwelling to obtain evidence was a trespass and a search within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment, erroneously determine that the search was
so minimal that it did not require a warrant or probable cause? United States v.
Peter, No. 13-1094
29
E.
Excessive Force
F.
Expectation of privacy
Did the government’s use of historical cell site evidence to track defendant’s
whereabouts on the dates of the robberies violate his Fourth Amendment rights?
United States v. Dean, No. 13-2982.
Did the district court err in denying Tolbert’s motion to suppress evidence,
finding that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room? United
States v. Tolbert, No. 14-3586.
Whether the district court erred in finding that defendants had an objectively
reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that occurred while being
detained in a police transport vehicle? United States v. Paxton, No. 14-2913
G.
Franks
Whether the search in this case should be voided and the fruits of the search
suppressed under Franks v. Delaware because material facts were deliberately or
recklessly omitted from the complaints or otherwise falsified in the complaints?
United States v. Gregory, Cipra, & Konrady, No. 14-2747, 14-2792, & 14-2759.
Whether any evidence was introduced at the Franks’ hearing that cast doubt on
whether the photos offered in support of the warrant were taken on the dates
indicated by the metadata provided by the government to the defendants with
the digital versions of the photos? United States v. Gregory, Cipra, & Konrady, No.
14-2747, 14-2792, & 14-2759.
Whether law enforcement either deliberately misled the state judge who issued
the warrant or were recklessly indifferent to whether the judge would be misled
by the information included in and omitted from Agent Chavira’s complaint for
no-knock warrant? United States v. Gregory, Cipra, & Konrady, Nos. 14-2747, 142792, & 14-2759.
Whether a Franks hearing on the warrant’s supporting affidavit should have been
conducted? United States v. Dessart, No. 14-2686.
Did the district court err in denying Mr. Mullins a Franks hearing where a
substantial preliminary showing was made that the affidavit in support of search
warrant contained material false statements or omissions which would alter the
finding of probable cause and that those statements were deliberately made or
made with reckless disregard for the truth? United States v. Mullins, No. 14-3626
30
H.
Good Faith Exception
Whether the district court erred in finding that the good faith reliance exception
applied in this case because the complaint for search warrant was so facially
insufficient that the officer should not have reasonable relied upon its issuance to
execute a search? United States v. Thompson, No. 14-3262.
Whether Martin’s conviction should be reversed because the district court,
despite Martin’s motion to suppress, failed to exclude evidence obtained through
the police’s warrantless use of GPS tracking technology based on its erroneous
belief that the Davis exception to the exclusionary rule applied, where the police
acted recklessly and did not know, investigate, or rely upon then-existing Circuit
precedent? United States v. Martin, No. 14-3187.
I.
Hearing
Whether the district court’s failure to rule on Mr. Charles’s pretrial motion to
suppress was not supported by good cause and severely prejudiced his ability to
adequately defend himself? United States v. Charles, No. 14-1530.
J.
Miranda
Whether the district court erred when it found the statements made by the
defendant to officers were not coerced? United States v. Smith, No. 14-3442.
K.
Miscellaneous
Whether Mr. Sturdivant’s confession should have been suppressed as
involuntary where the police acted with indifference to his diabetic condition
and used other tactics designed to exploit his youth and distress in obtaining the
confession? United States v. Sturdivant, No. 15-1059.
Whether the district court erred in denying Mr. Hill’s motion to suppress
evidence? United States v. Hill, No. 14-2019.
Whether the district court committed reversible error by not holding that a
convenience store selling cigarettes is not a “closely regulated” industry and the
convenience store industry has not been “long subject to close supervision and
inspection” consequently the cigarette tax ordinance was not a valid substitute
for a search warrant, and even if the store is considered a closely regulated
business, the criteria for an administrative search of the store as a closely
regulated business was not satisfied? United States v. Hamad, No. 14-3813
L.
Reasonable suspicion
Whether the district court erred in failing to suppress all evidence where a police
officer’s mistake of law provided the individualized suspicion to justify the
31
traffic stop of Mr. Miranda-Sotolongo’s car? United States v. Miranda-Sotolongo,
No. 14-2753.
Whether the district court erroneously denied Mr. Sanford’s motion to suppress
evidence recovered from the rental car he was a passenger in? United States v.
Sanford, No. 14-2860.
Whether the district court erred in denying Roman’s motion to suppress
evidence because there was no reasonable suspicion to stop and search Roman’s
vehicle and no valid consent to search the vehicle? United States v. Roman, No.
14-3209
Whether the district court committed reversible error by not holding that an
ordinance that allows for the administrative search of a business but does not
define the scope of the inspection or limit the discretion of the inspectors allows
for an unreasonable search and is unconstitutional as violating the Fourth
Amendment? United States v. Hamad, No. 14-3813.
Whether the district court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress
involving a traffic stop where the partial obstruction of two letters in the place
name on Appellant’s license plate by a plate frame did not violate Illinois Law
and any mistake of fact or law was not reasonable? United States v. Flores, No. 151515.
M.
Search
1.
Inevitable discovery
Probable cause to
2.
Whether the November 13, 2006, search of the car in which Sanders’ was riding
violated the Fourth Amendment? United States v. Wilbourn & Sanders, Nos. 133715 & 13-3727.
An officer searched Harris’s truck after arrested passenger Darrielle Watkins
asked for her coat and backpack. The officer also confiscated an incriminating
notebook. Harris, despite being in custody, was never asked if the truck was his
or whether he consented to the search. Was the search legal? United States v.
Harris, No. 14-1846.
Whether the district court committed error in denying the motion to suppress
evidence seized during the search of the defendant’s automobile following a
traffic stop? United States v. Reaves, No. 14-3554.
32
If a nine year old girl reports that she dreamed that Aleshire committed a crime
against her, may the reported dream provide probable cause to search the
defendant’s property for evidence of the dreamed about crime? If not, did the
officers rely on the warrant in good faith? United States v. Aleshire, No. 15-1192
Whether the district court erred in denying Anglin’s motion to suppress a
firearm found on his person and other fruits of his search and seizure? United
States v. Anglin, No. 15-1251.
3.
Protective Sweeps
Did the district court err when it failed to make a finding of regarding the initial
entry and protective sweep of the defendant’s residence? United States v.
Contreas, No. 15-1279.
N.
Standing.
Whether the district court erred in finding that Mr. Sweeney did not have a
protected Fourth Amendment interest in his apartment building’s basement
when the basement was only accessible from the building’s residents’ apartments
or a locked back door to the building and therefore not open to the public and
contained Mr. Sweeney’s water heater and electrical breaker box which by
Milwaukee law had to be made accessible to Mr. Sweeney? United States v.
Sweeney, No. 14-3785.
O.
Terry Stops
Police stopped Leo on the street and detained him to investigate a burglary
complaint. After handcuffing him, an officer took his backpack, opened it,
removed its contents, and found a gun that forms the basis for the charges
against Leo. This case presents one issue: During a Terry stop, officers may
sometimes frisk a person for weapons and frisk any bag they are carrying; may
they also open a bag and search its contents? United States v. Leo, 14-2262.
Whether it is reasonable for a young black male that lives in an urban area where
police relationships are strained and it is understood that one wrong move
during an encounter with law enforcement could result in loss of life - would feel
free to walk away when encountered by police officers in a dark alley, with his
33
forward path partially obstructed, and where the first and only inquiry from
officers was whether he was armed or in possession of contraband? United States
v. Smith, No. 14-2982.
Did the Fourth Amendment permit officers to Terry stop the SUV and its
occupants to investigate the minor parking violation at issue? United States v.
Johnson, No. 15-1366.
Did the officers’ few seconds of observation justify their seizure of the SUV for a
claimed parking violation? United States v. Johnson, No. 15-1366.
P.
Warrants
Whether the search warrant affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause
where there was no evaluation of the informant’s credibility and the affidavit
contained only conclusory statements? United States v. Olivo, No. 14-1140.
Whether the complaint for no-knock warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment
requirements for an anonymous tip? United States v. Gregory, Cipra, & Konrady,
Nos. 14-2747, 14-2792, & 14-2759.
Whether the search warrant obtained for Dessart’s Reedsville residence was
supported by probable cause? United States v. Dessart, No. 14-2686.
Whether the district court erred in finding probable cause to issue a search
warrant where the complaint for search warrant provided to the judge did not
contain an adequate factual foundation and the information it did contain
originated from a confidential informant whose credibility was not sufficiently
established? United States v. Thompson, No. 14-3262.
XIX.
SENTENCING
A.
Acquitted conduct
Whether the court erred by increasing the defendant’s sentence for making a
false statement based upon a finding at sentencing that the defendant also
committed arson, although the jury acquitted the defendant of the arson charge?
United States v. Rahman, No. 13-1586
B.
Armed Career Criminal/Career Offender
Whether the district court committed procedural error by incorrectly calculating
the Guidelines sentencing range, when Mr. Rollins' prior conviction for
34
possession of a sawed-off shotgun was not a crime of violence? United States v.
Rollins, No. 13-1731
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain an Armed Career Criminal
charge where the government did not provide sufficient evidence at trial that
Shields had more than one felony conviction? United States v. Shields, No. 133726.
Whether the district court erred in imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of
15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act where the elements were not
submitted to the jury in violation of Alleyne v. United States? United States v.
Shields, No. 13-3726.
Whether the district court erred in finding Shields’s aggravated battery and
residential burglary convictions, after restoration of civil rights, were convictions
under the recidivist enhancement in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. §
4B1.4(b)(3)(B)? United States v. Shields, No. 13-3726.
Whether the district court erred in denying Shields’s motion to dismiss the
indictment regarding the unconstitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)? United States
v. Shields, No. 13-3726.
Whether the district court erred in sentencing West as an armed career criminal?
United States v. West, No. 14-2415.
When using the categorical approach courts can only consult so-called Shepard
documents when faced with a divisible statute. Here, the prior state court
judgment was not divisible but ambiguous. The district court looked at the plea
and sentencing hearing transcript to determine if it was a violent felony. May a
district court go beyond the narrow scope set down by the Supreme Court and
look at Shepard documents when the judgment is silent or ambiguous about the
crime? United States v. Yang, No. 14-3688.
Whether the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §
924(e)(2)(B)(ii) is unconstitutionally vague? United States v. Bond, No. 15-1224.
Whether the district court erred in finding that Mr. Sweeney’s juvenile
adjudication for a Wisconsin armed robbery and his adult conviction in
Wisconsin for intimidation of a witness were violent felonies under the Armed
Career Criminal Act when the statutory elements of the offenses do not
categorically meet the Act’s definition of violent felony? United States v. Sweeney,
No. 14-3785.
35
C.
Burden of Proof
D.
Consecutive/Concurrent Sentences
E.
Cumulative Error
F.
Double Jeopardy
G.
Entrapment and manipulation
H.
Evidence admissible
I.
Ex Post Facto
Whether the district court erred in holding that application of policy statement
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause? United States v. King,
No. 13-2940 (government appeal)
J.
Fair Sentencing Act
K.
Fast Track
L.
Fines
M.
Forfeiture
Whether the district court’s erroneous application of Rule 32.2’s criminal
forfeiture procedures requires that the order for forfeiture “all items found in his
possession on September 19, 2012, including computers, storage media, visual
depictions, cameras, and cellular phones” be vacated? United States v. Lewis, No.
14-3635.
N.
Guideline Sections
1.
1B1.10(b)(2)(A)
2A3.5(b)(1)(A) (committing a sex offense while in
2.
fugitive status)
Whether the district court erred in imposing a six level enhancement pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(b)(1)(A) in reliance of the status offense of Indiana incest where
the alleged incestuous relationship was between the defendant and his adult
daughter, there is no element related to lack of consent in the statute, nor was his
36
daughter under the “custodial authority” of the defendant? United States v.
Rogers, No. 14-1553.
3.
2B1.1(a)(money laundering)
2B1.1(b)(1) (Amount of loss)
4.
Did the district court err when it based its “loss” calculation on the costs to
develop trade secrets that the defendant never possessed and the court expressly
found he had no intent to obtain? United States v. Pu, No. 15-1180.
Did the district court err when it concluded that the “loss” amount under
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 was $12,294,897, where no actual loss was caused by the offense
conduct and the court determined that the defendant had no intent to engage in
any of the conduct underpinning the government’s theory of intended loss?
United States v. Pu, No. 15-1180.
In determining Peterson’s sentencing guidelines range, the district court
overstated both the loss and the gross receipts to Peterson, which erroneously
increased his offense level by four points. United States v. Peterson, No. 14-3716.
Whether the district court committed procedural error by finding that Ms.
Harper had failed to provide any evidence to support her version of the value of
benefit received calculation when, in fact, Ms. Harper presented extensive expert
testimony supporting her calculation? United States v. Harper, No. 14-2701.
5.
2B1.1(b)(2) (number of victims in fraud)
Whether the district court erred in calculating the number of victims? United
States v. Jones, No. 14-3103.
6.
2B1.1(b)(2)(A) (mass marketing)
7.
2B1.1(b)(9)(C)(Sophisticated Means)
2B1.1(b)(10)(A) (relocating fraudulent scheme)
8.
Whether a fraud that is perpetrated in multiple jurisdictions is “relocated” for the
purpose of evading law enforcement under § 2B1.1(b)(10)(A) where the
defendant’s residence and fraud headquarters remained in the Detroit area for
the entire duration of the scheme, the fraudulently obtained goods were brought
back to the Detroit area to be fenced, and the defendants were unaware of any
ongoing law enforcement investigation into the fraud scheme that they sought to
evade by expanding into other jurisdictions? United States v. Hines-Flagg, 142975.
37
9.
2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i) (production of counterfeit access
device)
Whether the district court erred in applying the use of a counterfeit access device
enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(11)? United States v. Jones, No. 14-3103.
10.
2B1.1(b)(18)(B)(offense involving commodities law)
11.
2B3.1 (carjacking)
12. 2D1.1(Controlled Substances)
Whether the district court erred in finding Mr. Burnett responsible for additional
grams of heroin (relevant conduct) beyond those involved in the offense of
conviction; and whether the district court’s failure to analyze the relationship
between uncharged drug activity admitted by the defendant and the offense of
conviction requires remand? United States v. Burnett, Nos. 13-2882 & 13-2974.
Did the district court clearly err by basing its narcotics quantity finding on
unreliable evidence and by not articulating a methodology for arriving at the
quantity? United States v. Bounds, No. 13-3910.
Whether the district court erred in calculating the amount of controlled
substances to be attributed to the defendant at sentencing? United States v.
Presley, No. 14-2704.
Did the district court err and violate the defendant-appellant’s Sixth Amendment
right to due process when it applied the enhancement under § 2D1.1(a)(2) based
on its finding as relevant conduct and by only a preponderance of the evidence
that death resulted when the enhancement is to be applied only when the offense
of conviction establishes that death resulted from the use of the substance?
United States v. Lawler, No. 15-1496.
13. 2D1.1(b)(1) (possession of a firearm during drug
offense)
Whether the district court erred in determining that Mr. Joyce possessed a
firearm that was present during relevant conduct because the evidence fell short
of demonstrating his drug activities in July 2013, when the firearm was
possessed, were part of the same course of conduct or a common scheme or plan
as his charged conduct nearly two months earlier? United States v. Joyce, No. 141560.
38
14.
2G1.3(b)(3)(A)(using a computer to entice minor)
15.
2G2.1 (child exploitation)
16. 2G2.2 (child pornography)
Whether the district court erred in applying a cross-reference un U.S.S.G. §
2G2.2(c)(1) and sentencing Mr. Nicoson pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1? United
States v. Nicoson, No. 14-2557.
17. 2K2.1(a)(firearm offense after prior drug felony)
Whether the district court miscalculated Mr. Bloch’s guidelines range when it
determined that a battery by human waste conviction was a crime of violence
under § 2K2.1(a)(1)? United States v. Bloch, No. 13-3333.
18.
2K2.1(b)(1)(B) (number of firearms involved)
19. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (possession of firearm in connection
with a felony offense)
20. 2K2.1(c)(1)(A)(using firearm in connection with
another offense)
21. 2L1.2 (prior conviction)
Whether the district court adequately explain why it was denying Mr. QuinonezBarraza’s motion for below guideline sentence based on the argument that the 16
level enhancement under § 2L1.2 is not founded on empirical research regarding
deterrent efficacy or any other variable relevant to the purposes of sentencing
producing an unsound sentence under the particular facts of this case? United
States v. Quinonez, No. 14-2096.
Whether, in light of Descamps v. United States, the district court erred in treating
Mr. Zuniga-Galeana’s 1991 Illinois conviction for Aggravated Criminal Sexual
Abuse as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)? United States v.
Zuniga-Galeana, No. 14-1994.
22.
2L2.1(b)(2)(C) (more than 100 documents)
23.
2L2.1(b)(5)(B)(using or obtaining a foreign passport)
24. 2T1.1
Whether the district court erred in making its determination as to the proper
offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and applying a
39
U.S.S.G. offense level sentencing range that was inconsistent with U.S.S.G. §
2T1.1 and the underlying facts? United States v. Black, No. 13-3908.
Whether the tax loss amount in U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 should include penalties and
interest pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1? United States v. Black, No. 13-3908.
25. 2X1.1 (attempt)
Whether the district court erred in refusing to apply United States Sentencing
Guidelines Section 2X1.1 to reduce Mr. Grzegorczyk’s guideline calculation by
three levels for failing to complete all the acts he believed necessary for
successful completion of the substantive offense? United States v. Grzegorczyk,
No. 14-3460.
26. 3A1.1(vulnerable victim)
Whether increasing Mr. Burnett’s guidelines range in the fraud case based on
both the abuse of trust and vulnerable victim enhancements constitutes
impermissible double counting where the position of trust occupied by the
defender was guardian of a minor’s estate and the vulnerable victim
enhancement was based on the age of the victims? United States v. Burnett, Nos.
13-2882 & 13-2974.
Whether the district court failed to make any findings regarding the assessment
of the enhancement under § 3A1.1(b)(1) as to whether the victim was vulnerable
and whether Mr. Taylor knew or should have known the victim was vulnerable?
United States v. Taylor, No. 13-3469.
Whether the district court failed to make any findings regarding whether the
victim was vulnerable and whether Mr. Thomas knew or should have known the
victim was vulnerable? United States v. Thomas, No. 13-2814.
27. 3A1.2(c)(1) (assaulting an official victim)
Whether the district court committed reversible procedural error by increasing
Mr. Watts’s base offense level by six levels pursuant to the “official victim”
sentencing enhancement? United States v. Watts, No. 14-2944.
28. 3B1.1(a)(Leader or organizer)
Whether the district court in Mr. Burnett’s narcotics case erred in finding that Mr.
Burnett occupied a leadership role in a criminal activity? United States v. Burnett,
Nos. 13-2882 & 13-2974.
Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by enhancing Wilbourn’s
guideline offense level based on Freeman’s criminal acts and imposing a
40
manger/supervisor enhancement despite the fact that Wilbourn’s crimes of
conviction involved no participant other than Wilbourn? United States v. Wilbourn
& Sanders, Nos. 133715 & 13-3727.
The district court enhanced Harris’s sentence based on being a manager, using
sophisticated means, the number of victims, and relocating the scheme. With
these assessments, Harris was sentenced to 156 months. Did the district court err
in its sentencing determination? United States v. Harris, No. 14-1846.
Whether the district court erred when it enhanced Mr. Jones’s offense level by
four points for being a leader/organizer? United States v. Jones, No. 14-3103.
Whether the district court committed procedural error in its application of a
three-point enhancement for Defendant-Appellant’s perceived supervisory role
in the offense of conviction? United States v. Vasquez-Hernandez, No. 14-3622.
29. 3B1.2(Minor role)
Whether the district court erred in denying Mr. Garibay’s request for a minor
role reduction in his guidelines range at sentencing? United States v. Garibay, No.
14-2678.
30. 3B1.3(Abuse of position of trust)
Whether increasing Mr. Burnett’s guidelines range in the fraud case based on
both the abuse of trust and vulnerable victim enhancements constitutes
impermissible double counting where the position of trust occupied by the
defender was guardian of a minor’s estate and the vulnerable victim
enhancement was based on the age of the victims? United States v. Burnett, Nos.
13-2882 & 13-2974.
31. 3C1.1(Obstruction of justice)
Whether the District Court erred by sentencing Kasp to 97 months due to an
incorrectly calculated sentencing range based on the District Court’s finding that
Kasp obstructed justice by filing false statements in an affidavit. United States v.
Kasp, No. 13-2907
Whether the district court improperly calculated the advisory sentencing
guidelines by applying a 2-level offense enhancement for obstruction of justice
pursuant to U.S.S.G. §3C1.1? United States v. McMahan, No. 12-3291
41
Whether the district court failed to make appropriate findings in order to justify
the two level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1?
United States v. Taylor, No. 13-3469.
Whether the trial court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 to enhance Mr.
Mbaye’s sentence where Mbaye exercised his constitutional right to testify in his
own defense but the trial judge felt the defendant perjured himself? United States
v. Mbaye, No. 14-3348.
32. 3D1.2(Grouping)
Whether the district court plainly erred in calculating Kieffer’s guideline range
by factoring in his uncharged bank robberies, to which he did not specifically
stipulate, in its multiple count adjustment and by imposing restitution based on
the uncharged bank robberies? United States v. Kieffer, Nos. 14-2650, 14-2652, &
14-1653.
33. 3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility)
Whether the district court improperly calculated the advisory sentencing
guidelines when it ruled that because the defendant’s guilty plea was not an
exceptional case, defendant was not eligible to receive a 3-level decrease for
acceptance of responsibility in accordance with §3E1.1? United States v.
McMahan, No. 12-3291
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendant credit
for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 based on his denial
of the incestuous relationship with his adult daughter? United States v. Rogers,
No. 14-1553.
Did the district court err by denying Collins a two point reduction for acceptance
of responsibility? United States v. Collins, No. 14-3427.
Whether the district court erred in denying Mr. Pons acceptance of
responsibility? United States v. Pons, No. 15-1193.
Whether a defendant that admitted the criminal conduct prior to being indicted,
refused to sell the confidential informant prior to arrest, but when to trial should
receive acceptance of responsibility points? United States v. Chapman, No. 14-3311.
34. 4A1.1 (Criminal History)
Whether the district court abused its discretion when it found that a criminal
history category of III did not overstate Mr. Pantazelos’ criminal background and
42
whether the resulting sentence is substantively unreasonable? United States v.
Pantazelos, No. 13-1394
Whether the district court erred in calculating Mr. Purvis' criminal history
category, when three criminal history points were incorrectly assessed under the
2005 Sentencing Guidelines for a prior conviction that was not separated by an
intervening arrest and was related to another conviction receiving three points?
United States v. Purvis, No. 12-3856
Whether the district court incorrectly calculated Jones’s sentencing guideline
range and criminal history category by using a conviction that occurred more
than fifteen years prior to the commencement of the conduct in this case? United
States v. Jones, No. 14-1665.
Whether, given this Court’s decision in United States v. Jenkins, the district court
procedurally erred when it assessed criminal history points related to Mr. Gill’s
2008 aggravated unlawful use of a weapon conviction? United States v. Gill, No.
14-3205.
35. 5C1.2 (Safety Valve)
Whether the trial court erred in failing to apply the “safety valve” to Mr. PoncePerez contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, and U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(16) resulting in a minimum ten year sentence being imposed on the
defendant? United States v. Ponce-Perez, No. 14-1001.
Whether the district court erred in imposing a five-year sentence under the
misapprehension that Mr. Hussinger faced a mandatory minimum sentence of
five years, when both parties agreed that the safety-valve provision of 18 U.S.C. §
3553(f) removed the mandatory minimum? United States v. Hussinger, No. 142708.
36.
5G1.2(Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences)
37. 5G1.3(Credit for time served on state case)
Whether the district court’s decision, by initially predicting the amount of credit
a person will receive against his sentence and increasing the sentence to deprive
that person of the projected credited time, is procedurally flawed? United States v.
Davis, No. 14-3109.
Whether the district court improperly interpreted U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(e) by
determining that the amount of time Mr. Davis had spent in custody awaiting
trial and subject to a detainer based upon the supervised release warrant was not
43
time resulting from the supervised release violation warrant or proceeding?
United States v. Davis, No. 14-3109.
38.
5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance)
39.
5K2.20 (Aberrant Behavior)
O.
Mandatory Minimums
Whether the district court’s fact-finding that resulted in a 20-year mandatory
minimum sentence violated Mr. Bethany’s Sixth Amendment rights pursuant to
the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alleyne. United States v. Bethany, No. 13-1777
Whether the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial and the Fifth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause require the government to prove to a jury the fact of a prior
conviction beyond a reasonable doubt when the prior conviction increases the
mandatory minimum sentence to which a defendant is subjected? United States v.
Saenz, No. 13-2698
Was Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) wrongly decided in
light of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court; and were Mannebach’s right
under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments violated when the judge imposed
mandatory life sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. §
3559(c)(1) [“Three Strikes Law”] where the predicate prior convictions are not
charged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United
States v. Mannebach, No. 13-1787
Whether the district court improperly enhanced the defendant’s mandatory
minimum sentence pursuant to the government’s filing of an 851 notice, where
the prior drug felony should have been found to be part of the defendant’s
present offense of conviction? United States v. Perkins, No. 13-1399
Does it violate the 6th Amendment for the sentencing court to increase the
minimum and maximum penalty based on a prior conviction not alleged in the
indictment, admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury? United States v.
Misleveck, No. 13-1855
Whether judicial fact finding regarding Mr. Herrell’s prior qualifying felonies for
purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act violated Mr. Herrell’s rights under
the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Sixth Amendment right to trial
by jury? United States v. Herrell, No. 13-1023
Whether the district court improperly doubled Lee’s sentence pursuant to 21
U.S.C. §841(b)(1), based on a prior Illinois drug possession charge that had been
44
dismissed after Lee successfully served a probationary term? United States v. Lee,
No. 12-1718
Whether the defendant should have been sentenced under the Fair Sentencing
Act in light of Dorsey, where he was sentenced after the effective date of the Act?
United States v. Lee, No. 12-1718
Whether the defendant was entitled to re-sentencing without a mandatory
minimum sentence of Life where he was sentenced after the effective date of the
FSA but received the mandatory minimum sentence provided by the law prior to
the FSA? United States v. Herman, No. 12-1183
Whether the nature and fact of a prior conviction must be alleged in the
indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in order for that
conviction to increase a statutory minimum and maximum penalty? United States
v. Lyons, No. 14-1442.
Whether the district court committed error by failing to resolve the issue of
whether Mr. Hendricks’ convictions had become final for purposes of a prior
conviction for 18 U.S.C. § 3559(e)? United States v. Hendricks, No. 14-2477
Whether the district court committed error by failing to receive or consider any
evidence of Mr. Hendricks’ prior convictions to determine whether or not the
convictions counted as a “Federal sex offense” as required under 18 U.S.C. §
3559(e) for mandatory life imprisonment? United States v. Hendricks, No.14-2477
Whether the district court erred in sentencing Mr. Brown and Mr. Coleman to
mandatory life in prison when the government did not prove and the jury did
not find two or more prior felony drug convictions against each defendant?
United States v. Brown, et al., Nos. 14-1363, 14-1364, 14-1426, and 14-2689.
Whether Brandon Lomax’s sentence violated the 5th and 6th Amendments to the
Constitution where he was subjected to an enhanced mandatory minimum
sentence despite the fact that his prior convictions were neither pled in the
indictment nor proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt? United States v.
Lomax, et al., Nos. 14-2811, 14-3189, 14-3684.
Whether a prior conviction, used to increase statutory mandatory minimum and
maximum penalties for an offense, must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt pursuant to Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)? United States v.
Bond, No. 15-1224.
45
P.
Miscellaneous
The Supreme Court has held that courts cannot lengthen a prison term to
promote an offender’s rehabilitation. During her time on federal supervision Ms.
Kolp often relapsed into drug addiction. Her supervision was revoked, and
rather than imposing a guideline sentence between 4-10 months, the court
sentenced her to 20 months. During sentencing, it noted that the two driving
factors were punishment and treatment. Did the district court lengthen its
sentence to promote Ms. Kolp’s rehabilitation? United States v. Kolp, No. 14-1601.
Whether the district court impermissibly considered Mr. Haynes’s race in
imposing sentence, when it alluded to his race in explaining why a 240 month
sentence was necessary? United States v. Haynes, No. 13-3617
Whether the district court erred in denying Corral’s motion for downward
departure based on the over-representation of his criminal history? United States
v. Corral, No. 14-1964.
Whether the district court erred in denying Corral’s motion for downward
departure based upon exceptional family circumstances? United States v. Corral,
No. 14-1964.
Whether the district court abused its discretion during sentencing in awarding
credit for only 24 of the 41 months of pre-indictment delay, based upon a finding
of no bad faith in delay, arbitrarily determining a period of 18 months sufficient
to investigate, and failing to adjust the criminal history category for the preindictment delay prejudice resulting in three additional points? United States v.
Cortez-Lopez, No. 14-2638.
Did the district court err in declining to continue the sentencing hearing in light
of the new allegations made by Collins? United States v. Collins, No. 14-3427.
Did the district court err by refusing to amend Mr. Medina-Mora’s written
judgment to match its oral pronouncement on the ground that, more than four
years after the fact, the court determined that “it did not intend” the concurrent
sentence it unambiguously imposed? United States v. Medina-Mora, No. 14-1420
Whether the sentencing court considered unreliable evidence when calculating
the total offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines? United
States v. Auston, No. 14-3135
Whether the sentencing court considered improper conduct when determining
the applicable sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines?
United States v. Auston, No. 14-3135.
46
Whether Martin’s sentence of mandatory life imprisonment without parole
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) for recidivist nonviolent drug offenses must
be overturned because it constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited
by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution? United States v.
Martin, No. 14-3187.
Q.
Reasonableness
1.
Procedural
Whether the district court procedurally erred in sentencing Mr. Harris by failing
to adequately address his arguments in support of a sentence to be run
concurrent to his undischarged state prison sentence. United States v. Harris, No.
13-2216
Did the District Court procedurally err when it failed to mention or take into
consideration the advisory guideline range under the Guidelines? United States v.
Patrick, No. 13-2463
Did the District Court err when it failed to make findings or specifically address
Patrick’s “history and characteristics” under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(1) in determining
a reasonable sentence under the Guidelines? United States v. Patrick, No. 13-2463
Did the court err when it failed to state on the record any appropriate reason for
a sentence above the high end of the guideline range, and more than ten times
higher than the 30 days the government and the probation officer recommended?
United States v. Patrick, No. 13-2463
Stanciu and Isac, both non-citizens, argue that the district court did not address
the likelihood of deportation after serving their sentences, thereby failing to
address an important factor under Title 18 USC §3553(a) and that the resulting
sentence was unreasonable. United States v. Stanciu, No. 13-1149
Whether Mr. Husti’s sentencing was procedurally proper where the district court
did not state the reason for Mr. Husti’s sentence, which because it is one day over
a year, prevents him from seeking legal resident status. United States v. Husti, No.
13-1431
Whether the district court erred when it failed to address the defendant’s
potentially meritorious argument at sentencing, and whether the defendant’
middle-of-the range sentence was unreasonable? United States v. Davis, No. 132143
47
The sentence of 235 months’ imprisonment, just six months short of the statutory
maximum and four years in excess of the top end of the advisory sentencing
guideline range, is procedurally unreasonable since the district court did not
fully consider or explain Ms. Crundwell’s non frivolous mitigating arguments.
United States v. Crundwell, No. 13-1407
The district court erroneously combined psychological harm to non victims and
significant disruption of government function to impose an upward variance of
four years. Since the district court did not weigh the effect of each factor, this
Court is unable to determine if the district court abused its discretion. United
States v. Crundwell, No. 13-1407
Whether the district court erred as a matter of law when it concluded it had no
authority or discretion to consider in mitigation of the sentence, the impact of
Mr. Patterson’s drug use on the offense, so long as the drug use did not negate
the mens rea element of the offense. United States v. Patterson, No. 13-1517
Should Mr. Ramirez-Ortega be resentenced because the district court failed to
address his argument that the court should impose a concurrent sentence and
give him credit for the lost opportunity to serve a portion of his federal sentence
concurrently with his state sentence due to the government’s delay in charging
him? United States v. Ramirez-Ortega, No. 13-1286
Whether Mr. Johnson’s sentence is procedurally unreasonable where it is unclear
whether the district court presumed that the United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“Guidelines”) were reasonable, and used a presentence investigation report
(“PSR”) that referred to improper documents to determine whether a divisible
prior conviction was a career offender predicate? United States v. Johnson, No. 123092
Did the district court err by failing to meaningfully consider a defendant’s
principal sentencing argument – made in both sentencing memoranda and oral
argument at the sentencing hearing – that a custodial sentence would create an
unwarranted disparity between the defendant and others sentenced for theft of
trade secrets convictions in violation of §1832? United States v. Jin, No. 12-3013
Whether the district court’s sentence was unreasonable because the court
sentenced the defendant as if he was convicted of a dismissed count, when that
count was already factored into the Guideline range? United States v. Jones, No.
11-3864
48
Whether the court failed to meaningfully address a mitigation argument based
upon the deportation consequences of the defendant’s sentence? United States v.
Ramirez-Fuentes, No. 12-1494
Whether the district court committed procedural error by considering an
erroneous fact during Mr. Miller’s sentencing: that the jury found Mr. Miller
committed repeated acts of tax evasion when the jury only found Mr. Miller
committed at least one act of tax evasion? United States v. Miller, No. 13-3062
Whether the district court committed procedural error by failing to consider a
required sentencing factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when it failed to address Mr.
Miller’s arguments that he presented a low risk of recidivism? United States v.
Miller, No. 13-3062
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider Mr.
Camacho-Montalvo’s principal sentencing arguments in mitigation under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), as evidence by the court’s failure to address them at all or in any
meaningful way? Furthermore, was the sentence imposed substantively
unreasonable? United States v. Camacho-Montalvo, No. 14-1220.
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider Mr. MirandaCamarena’s principal sentencing arguments in mitigation under 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a), as evidenced by the court’s failure to address any of them, in imposing
an enhanced, mid-range sentence of 34 months imprisonment? Furthermore,
was the sentence imposed substantively unreasonable? United States v. MirandaCamarena, No. 14-1265.
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to make an
individualized assessment of Mr. Miranda-Camarena’s offense conduct, basing
its sentence on erroneous facts and other improper considerations, and failing to
adequately explain the sentence imposed, in imposing an enhanced, mid-range
sentence of 34 months imprisonment? United States v. Miranda-Camarena, No. 141265.
Whether the district court plainly erred when it used incorrect information that
Mr. Brewster “repeatedly forced” a child to perform sex acts as a basis to impose
a 420 month sentence? United States v. Brewster, No. 14-1285.
Whether the district court erred in failing to address specifically the evidence of
Mr. Johnson’s reform during his period of incarceration as it is evidence of the
likelihood that he would respond positively to a lower sentence and the
likelihood that he would reoffend? United States v. Johnson, No. 14-1465
49
Whether the district court erred in failing to address specifically the evidence of
Mr. Johnson’s reform during his period of incarceration as it is evidence of the
likelihood that he would respond positively to a lower sentence and the
likelihood that he would not reoffend? United States v. Johnson, No. 14-1465.
Whether the district court erred by not considering a principal mitigating
argument at sentencing and inadequately explaining the above-guidelines
sentence it imposed? United States v. Jines, No. 14-1603.
Mr. Moore’s non-frivolous argument that the personal and historical
circumstances by which he began drug dealing merited a sentence below the
advisory guideline range? United States v. Moore, No. 14-1859.
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider Mr. Taylor’s
non-frivolous § 3553(a) arguments in mitigation advanced at sentencing
including his extremely traumatic childhood and upbringing, his youth at the
time of the offense, his low IQ, and his efforts at rehabilitation. Furthermore,
whether the sentence imposed in this case was substantively unreasonable?
United States v. Taylor, No. 13-3469.
Whether the district court committed reversible procedural error by failing to
consider Mr. Thomas’s non-frivolous § 3553(a) arguments that he advanced at
sentencing, including that he was raised in a completely dysfunctional
household marred by poverty, instability, substance abuse, death, and violence;
had a long history of substance abuse; and suffered from mental health issues at
the time of the offense? United States v. Thomas, No. 13-2814.
Whether the district court procedurally erred by not providing an explanation
for the sentence imposed commensurate with the departure from the range of
imprisonment recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines? United States v.
Rodriguez-Sanchez, No. 14-2456.
Whether the district court’s failure to adequately explain its reasons for refusing
to grant a variance based on a government policy of delaying indictment for
Illegal Reentry until the defendant completed his state sentence was procedural
error? United States v. Lazcano-Leon, No. 14-2036.
Whether the district court erred by inadequately addressing Mr. Falor’s principal
mitigation argument? United States v. Falor, No. 14-1369.
Whether the district court erred at the resentencing hearing by not weighing or
addressing Mr. Lomax’s mitigating arguments? United States v. Lomax, No. 142237.
50
Whether the district court erred when it imposed a sentence more than 50%
longer than the high-end of the advisory guidelines range without offering a
sufficiently compelling justification? United States v. Garcia, No. 14-2368.
Did the district court err when it failed to adequately consider Mr. Jones’s 3553(a)
factors and merely relied on the sentencing guideline range for the purposes of
sentencing? United States v. Jones, No. 14-2787.
Whether the district court erred when it refused/failure to consider codefendant’s sentences to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities? United States
v. Jones, No. 14-3103.
Whether the district court committed procedural error by failing to adequately
consider sentencing disparities among defendants convicted of similar conduct?
United States v. Watts, No. 14-2944.
Whether the district court committed error when it (1) stated that it did not know
if it had the authority to consider the sentences of other defendants in deciding
on the sentence of defendant Uriarte and (2) gave no indication in imposing
sentence that it had considered the sentences of other defendants, either in
conformity with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) or notwithstanding 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)?
United States v. Uriarte, No. 12-3747.
Whether the district court erred in failing to consider Mr. Grzegorczyk’s mental
health at the time of the offense and additional trauma he suffered while in the
custody of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in mitigation of the sentence
called for by the sentencing guidelines? United States v. Grzegorczyk, No. 14-3460.
Whether the district court committed procedural error when it misapprehended
the guidelines recommendation and possibly based its sentence on
constitutionally-impermissible factors? United States v. Bour, Nos. 14-2211 & 151090.
Whether the district court unreasonably relied on Mr. Smart’s juvenile criminal
history when considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors? United States
Smart, No. 14-3053.
Whether the district court committed procedural error in failing to consider the
unwarranted sentencing disparities as a result of its 25 month upward variance
from the sentencing guidelines range supported by the government and 39
month upward variance from the sentence recommended by the Probation
Office? United States v. Smart, No. 14-3053.
51
Whether the district court erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors before imposing sentence? United States v. Ford, No. 14-3452.
Whether a sentence based solely on one of the seven factors listed in 18 U.S.C. §
3553 is reasonable? United States v. Chapman, No. 14-3311.
Whether the district court erred in relying on inaccurate information when the
government misstated Mr. Chatman’s criminal history, and that misstatement
impacted the district court’s sentencing decision? United States v. Chatman, No.
14-2519.
Whether the district court procedurally erred when it failed to adequately
explain why it imposed a top of the guidelines, 235 month sentence? United States
v. Evanick, No. 13-3476
Cunningham’s sentence of 128 months is unreasonable because in imposing it,
the district court misapplied the mandatory factors under Title 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) in that it failed to understand and consider that his criminal history was
overstated due to the addition of two criminal history points pursuant to §
4A1.1(e) which had the effect of increasing his criminal history category,
repeatedly relied on the same factors in the guideline calculations and § 3553(a)
analysis and it was longer than necessary to meet the sentencing goals pursuant
to § 3553(a)(2). United States v. Cunningham, No. 15-1607.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to address defendant’s
single issue in mitigation, post-offense rehabilitation, where said argument was
fully briefed and legally recognizable? United States v. Woods, No. 15-1495.
Whether the district court procedurally erred when it failed to adequately
explain its reasons for imposing a sentence at the top of the advisory guidelines
range? United States v. Burke, No. 15-1882.
Whether the district court procedurally erred when it failed to address Mr.
Burke’s principal argument in mitigation that his failure to report to a halfway
house because of his drug use did not deserve the punishment assigned to more
serious escapes in which the defendant commits an additional felony offense or
escapes from a secure institution? United States v. Burke, No. 15-1882.
Whether the district court committed procedural error in deciding to apply an
upward variance from the advisory guidelines range? United States v. VasquezHernandez, No. 14-3622.
52
Whether remand for resentencing is required where the district court failed to
adequately explain its choice of sentence? United States v. Vasquez-Hernandez, No.
14-3622.
Whether the district court ignored Murphy’s reasonable policy argument
regarding the sentencing guidelines’ treatment of the style of firearm he
possessed? United States v. Murphy, No. 15-1602.
Whether a district court must explain its rejection of a defendant’s principal,
nonfrivolous arguments in mitigation of sentence? United States v. Murphy, No.
15-1602.
Whether the 108 month sentence must be vacated because the district court
imposed the sentence without addressing Mr. Armand’s crack/powder disparity
argument, incorrectly believing that it was a within-guidelines sentence and gave
no justification for what was actually an above-guidelines sentence? United States
v. Armand, No. 14-3757.
2.
Substantive
Whether Mr. Adams’ sentence, at more than double the guideline range, is
substantively unreasonable? United States v. Adams, No. 13-1368
The issue is whether the sentence of 155 months of imprisonment is
unreasonable where the defendant who is a drug addict has never had an
opportunity for meaningful drug treatment. United States v. Jemine, No. 12-3857
Was a high-end, albeit within guideline, sentence of 87 months for illegal reentry
by an aggravated felon inherently unreasonable given the District Court’s
emphasis upon Appellant’s prior gang affiliations, involvement in transporting
individuals unlawfully in the United States, and likelihood to re-offend, in light
of the other sentencing factors raised by the defense: to include his lack of
recidivism since returning to the United States, difficult childhood, and relatively
young age? United States v. Moran-Vazquez, No. 12-3288
Is Hintonʹs 132‐month sentence, which is disproportionate to the sentences of this
co‐defendant and others involved in a related drug conspiracy, unreasonable in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553? United States v. Hinton, No. 12-2885
Whether Mr. Johnson’s sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the
district court’s heavy reliance on the Guidelines, overemphasis on Mr. Johnson’s
53
criminal history, and the failure of the sentence to reflect Mr. Johnson’s age and
personal characteristics? United States v. Johnson, No. 12-3092
Whether the defendant’s within the range sentence in excess of 24 years was
substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigation evidence presented at
sentencing? United States v. Ramirez-Fuentes, No. 12-1494
Whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing a 120 month
sentence of imprisonment, a below-guidelines sentence, where, although Mr.
Hardimon’s criminal history was extensive, such a sentence significantly
overstated the seriousness of his offense and the nature of his criminal history?
United States v. Hardimon, No. 14-1120.
Whether the district court’s imposition of an above-guidelines, four-year
sentence, based on Ms. Luckett’s uncharged social security fraud and possible
food stamp fraud, was unreasonable because the sentence significantly exceeded
the guideline range that would have applied if she had been convicted for the
uncharged fraud and where her life expectancy is reduced because she is in stage
four kidney disease? United States v. Luckett, No. 14-1405.
Whether the district court significantly erred when it imposed Mr. Perez’s
sentence, resulting in a sentence that was greater than necessary to comply with
the purposes of sentencing by (1) giving an undue presumption of
reasonableness to the guidelines, (2) relying on inaccurate information when
imposing sentence, (3) failing to adequately consider sentencing arguments, and
(4) failing to adequately explain why the sentence was sufficient, but not greater
than necessary? United States v. Perez, No. 13-2446.
Over the course of a decade, Mr. Warner hid more than $100 million in secret
Swiss bank accounts, refused to report at least $24 million of income to the
Internal Revenue Service, and evaded at least $5.5 million in taxes. He was
sentenced to a term of probation, 500 hours of community service, and a fine of
$100,000. Was this a reasonable sentence? (government appeal) United States v.
Warner, No. 14-1330
Whether the district court’s decision sentencing Mr. Jimenez to 77 months’
imprisonment for illegal reentry, despite the nature and circumstances of his past
and present offenses, is substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)?
United States v. Jimenez, No. 14-1973.
Whether the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable given the correct
guideline offense level and sentencing range and a consideration of the facts
54
presented during sentencing in applying the § 3553(a0 factors and whether the
error made by the district court in determining the U.S.S.G. offense level and
sentencing range was harmless? United States v. Black, No. 13-3908.
Whether the district court committed reversible substantive error by failing to
consider Mr. Thomas’s non-frivolous § 3553(a) arguments that he advanced at
sentencing? United States v. Thomas, No. 13-2814.
Whether the district court committed substantive error by failing to adequately
explain its reasons for sentencing defendant toward the high end of the advisory
guidelines sentencing range? United States v. Lazcano-Leon, No. 14-2036.
Whether the district court failed to consider the argument regarding the risks of
imposing a de facto life sentence and whether the resulting sentence was
substantively unreasonable? United States v. Jines, No. 14-1861.
Whether Mr. Jones’s sentence was reasonable in light of the factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)? United States v. Jones, No. 14-3103.
Whether the district court imposed an objectively unreasonable sentence of 420
months for a low-level, non-violent drug offense, because it failed to adequately
follow the directives in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2), and (6)? United States v. Poke,
No. 14-2331.
Whether the district court committed error by imposing a substantively
unreasonable sentence derived from an improper calculation of the guidelines
range and the failure to consider certain § 3553(a) arguments? United States v.
Watts, No. 14-2944.
Whether the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence, in
view of Mr. Grzegorczyk’s age - 51 years old at the time of sentencing, his lack of
any criminal background, and his need for mental health treatment rather than
incarceration to address the root causes of the breakdown that he suffered which
resulted in the aberrant conduct of the offense? United States v. Grzegorczyk, No.
14-3460.
Whether the sentence of life plus 1,020 months is substantively unreasonable,
because the above-guidelines sentence violates the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
and was not compellingly justified? United States v. Bour, Nos. 14-2211 & 15-1090.
Whether the district court’s sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment, which
constituted 25 months above the applicable guidelines range and 39 months
55
above the precise sentence recommended by the Probation Office, was
substantively unreasonable? United States v. Smart, No. 14-3053.
Whether Purham’s sentence of 324 months is unreasonable because in imposing
it, the district court improperly calculated the advisory sentencing guideline
range and misapplied the mandatory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in that it
placed undue reliance on factors which were already taken into consideration by
guideline enhancements and it was longer than necessary to meet the sentencing
goals under § 3553(a)(2)? United States v. Purham, No. 14-3424.
Whether Ms. Lambert’s sentence of 80 months was substantively unreasonable in
light of her serious health issues and life-expectancy of 90 months, her low risk of
recidivism and her successful period of conditional release? United States v.
Melendez & Lambert, Nos. 14-3590 & 15-1131.
Whether the 235 month term of imprisonment for producing child pornography
substantively unreasonable, when the offense conduct consisted of taking four
photographs of a 17 year old female engaged in lawful sexual conduct with the
defendant? United States v. Evanick, No. 13-3476.
Whether the court abused its discretion in sentencing Mbaye to 35 months of
incarceration rather than nominal incarceration such as time served probation
requiring community service? United States v. Mbaye, No. 14-3348.
Whether the specific facts presented in this case rebut the presumption of
reasonableness created by Mr. Santiago’s below-guidelines, thirty-month
sentence? United States v. Santiago, No. 15-1364.
R.
Relevant Conduct
Whether Purham’s sentence should again be vacated and remanded for
resentencing because the district court erred in accepting the government’s
argument that it could recalculate the base offense level for the offense of
conviction despite this Honorable Court’s remand which was limited to
determining whether 2008 drug activity qualifies as relevant conduct? United
States v. Purham, No. 14-3424
Whether Melendez was part of a joint undertaking and therefore responsible for
drugs transported from Chicago to Rockford with co-defendant Michael Craig?
United States v. Melendez & Lambert, Nos. 14-3590 & 15-1131.
Whether the district court calculated correctly Melendez’s relevant conduct?
United States v. Melendez & Lambert, Nos. 14-3590 & 15-1131.
56
Whether the district court’s reliance on conspiracy evidence at sentencing
violated due process where the conspiracy count was dismissed based on
government misconduct? United States v. Freeman, No. 15-1170.
S.
Restitution
Whether the District Court erroneously ordered Mr. Munoz to pay a criminal
penalty of $20,100 as “restitution” to the government for the buy money used in
the controlled buys that led to his convictions? United States v. Munoz, No. 123377
Whether the district court erred in issuing its order of restitution pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3663A, which does not permit orders of restitution for violations of Title
26 of the United States Code? United States v. Miller, No. 13-3062
Whether the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act violates the right to trial by jury
both on its face and as applied in this case? United States v. Robertson, No. 133816.
Whether the district court erred by imposing restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 to
“Cindy” without considering Mr. Sainz’s relative role in the causal process
underlying the losses experienced by “Cindy” as required by Paroline v. United
States? United States v. Sainz, No. 13-3585
Whether the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act violates the right to trial by jury
and violates the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the United States
Constitution? United States v. Printz, No. 14-1304.
Without an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the government’s
motion to reform the parties’ written settlement agreement to include an asset
that was to be retained by the government as part of the parties’ oral agreement.
The government proffered that the parties had expressly agreed that the
government would retain that asset and requested an evidentiary hearing to
demonstrate that there had been a drafting mistake in the agreement. Did the
district court commit legal error and abuse its discretion? United States v. Segal.
No. 13-3847
Whether the district court’s restitution order, entered nearly eight months after
the sentencing hearing, was untimely because the victims’ loses were
ascertainable under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) at sentencing? United States v. Bour,
Nos. 14-2211 & 15-1090.
Did the district court abuse its discretion when it awarded criminal restitution in
the amount of $759,649.55, a figure that included attorneys’ fees that were
57
incurred by the victim in furtherance of its civil lawsuit against the defendant?
United States v. Pu, No. 15-1180.
Whether the district court abused its discretion when it ordered Van Til to pay
$26,502.74 in restitution? United States v. Van Til, No. 15-1385.
T.
Rule 32 (Notice & Findings)
Whether by imposing a 108 month sentence, the district court procedurally erred
since it expressly stated that it intended to impose a sentence that was 27 months
above the high-end of the 57 to 71 month guidelines range, and such a sentence
would have resulted in 98 rather than the 108 months’ imprisonment? United
States v. Garcia, No. 14-2368.
U.
Statutory maximums and minimums
Whether the district court committed plain error when it mistakenly sentence
Mr. Davis in excess of the statutory maximum? United States v. Davis, 14-3109.
Whether the district court erred in sentencing Mr. Dixon to a mandatory life
sentence under the “three strikes” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) when the
government failed to prove that Mr. Dixon had any prior felony convictions at
trial and whether the district court incorrectly found that Mr. Dixon’s prior
convictions were serious violent felonies? United States v. Dixon, No. 14-3225.
Whether the statutory maximum term of imprisonment was one year? United
States v. Ford, No. 14-3452.
XX. SUPERVISED RELEASE
Whether Mr. Pritchard’s Fifth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) right to confront adverse witnesses were violated when
the district court denied him the ability to question witnesses whose hearsay
testimony was offered by the Government? United States v. Pritchard, No. 13-2646
Whether the district court erred when it found there was a Grade A violation of
supervised release? United States v. Pritchard, No. 13-2646
Whether the 92 month sentence that the district court imposed was plainly
unreasonable since the Guideline range was, at worst, 46 to 57 months’
imprisonment and perhaps as low as 7 to 13 months’ imprisonment? United
States v. Pritchard, No. 13-2646
58
Whether the 92 month sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
court relied on allegations that were not supported by evidence and were not
contained in the revocation petition? United States v. Pritchard, No. 13-2646
Whether the district court committed procedural error by incorrectly calculating
the Guidelines term of supervised release? United States v. Rollins, No. 13-1731
Whether the district court imposed an illegal sentence upon the revocation of Mr.
Neal's supervised release, where the total term of supervised release imposed
less the term of imprisonment imposed exceeded the term of supervised release
authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of
supervised release? United States v. Neal, No. 13-1536
Whether the district court committed reversible procedural error when it
imposed sex offender treatment as a special condition of supervised release
without providing any justification for the imposition of this special condition?
United States v. Rynearson, No. 13-2064
Whether the district court abused its discretion when it imposed sex offender
treatment as a special condition of supervised release under the particular facts
of this case? United States v. Rynearson, No. 13-2064
Whether the District Court’s New Term of Supervised Release Requiring
Appellant to Submit to a Search of his Person, Residence, Real Property, Place of
Business, Computer or Other Electronic Communication or Data Storage Device
or Media, Vehicle, and Any Other Property Under his Control at a Reasonable
Time and in a Reasonable Manner Based Upon a Reasonable Suspicion of
Contraband or Evidence of a Violation of a Condition of Release Is Excessively
Intrusive, and Not Sufficiently Justified by the Goals of Sentencing In Light of
Appellant’s Violations, History, and Characteristics. United States v. Johnson, No.
13-2094
Whether the court erred when it sentenced the defendant to two concurrent
terms of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release because, in a prior
revocation proceeding, the court imposed only a single term of supervised
release to follow his sentence of probation? United States v. Ingram, No. 12-3194
Whether the defendant’s term of supervised release commenced after he had
completed his prison term but while he was still being detained in connection
with Adam Walsh Act civil commitment proceedings? United States v. Maranda,
No. 13-3917.
59
Whether the district court’s imposition of an 18 month sentence was illegal
because Mr. DuPriest, who was on supervised release for a Class E felony, was
subject to a maximum sentence of one year imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(3)? United States v. DuPriest, No. 13-3914.
Whether the district court committed reversible procedural error by
miscalculated the policy range of imprisonment recommended by the guidelines
and failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)? United States v.
DuPriest, No. 13-3914.
Whether the district court’s revocation sentence was procedurally unreasonable,
and should be vacated, because the court relied on a sentencing factor of its own
creation and failed to explain its upward variance based upon the factor? United
States v. Phillip, No. 14-1354.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing an
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad special condition of supervised release
that Mr. Williams “shall not consume . . . any mood altering substances?” United
States v. Olivo, No. 13-3479.
Whether the district court erred when it required Mr. Williams to pay for the
treatment programs imposed as special conditions of supervised release? United
States v. Olivo, No. 13-3479.
Whether the district court erred when it imposed as “special conditions” of
supervised release a polygraph requirement, a restriction on where Mr. Brewster
could go and who he could communicate with, and a ban on him accessing
sexually stimulating/sexually oriented material or patronizing locations where
such material is available? United States v. Brewster, No. 14-1285.
Whether the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a number of
special conditions of supervised release that are not reasonably related to the
offense of conviction, involve a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary, run
afoul of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are contrary
to this Court’s decision in United States v. Siegel? United States v. Sainz, No. 133585.
Whether the district court erred by imposing non-mandatory supervised release
conditions that were unsupported by any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings and which
excessively infringe on Mr. Jines’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights? United
States v. Jines, No. 14-1603.
60
Whether the district court erred by imposing standard conditions of supervised
release without making any findings to support them? United States v. Griffin, No.
14-1833.
Whether the district court, when it imposed a special condition of supervised
release requiring Mr. Griffin to perform community service, erred by failing to
limit the total amount of community service to 400 total hours? United States v.
Griffin, No. 14-1833.
Whether the district court erred by imposing non-mandatory supervised release
conditions that were unsupported by any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings and which
excessively infringe on Mr. Hall’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights? United
States v. Hall, No. 14-1230.
Whether the standard conditions of supervised release, since they were never
orally pronounced at sentencing, are a nullity? United States v. Sulaski, No. 141520.
Whether, irrespective of its failure to orally pronounce the standard conditions,
the district court erred by imposing discretionary conditions that are vague,
overbroad, involve excessive deprivations of liberty and lack the required 18
U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings? United States v. Sulaski, No. 14-1520.
Whether the district court erred when it imposed vague and overbroad
discretionary conditions of supervised release? United States v. Flores, No. 141928.
Whether a district court has the discretion to impose a condition of supervision
that a defendant take psychiatric medication when the district court did not
receive any information regarding the defendant’s prior use of psychiatric
medication and the district court found that the defendant’s offense was not
affected by her psychiatric state? United States v. Montgomery, No. 14-1648.
Whether the district court erred by entering a written Amended Judgment whose
“Standard Conditions of Supervision” differ from the terms orally pronounced at
the sentencing hearing? United States v. Falor, No. 14-1369.
Whether the district court erred by imposing discretionary conditions that are
vague, overbroad, involve excessive deprivations of liberty, and lack the
required 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings? United States v. Falor, No. 14-1369.
61
Did the district court procedurally err in basing its revocation sentence on a
factor of its own creation rather than upon the statutory sentencing factors
prescribed by Congress? United States v. Arch, No. 14-3096
Whether a district court has the discretion to impose a condition of supervision
that a defendant take psychiatric medications when the district court did not
receive any information regarding the defendant’s prior use of psychiatric
medication and the district court found that the defendant’s offense was not
affected by her psychiatric state? United States v. Montgomery, No. 14-1648.
Whether Mr. Lee was denied due process when he was not provided adequate
written notice of the alleged violation of supervised release contrary to Rule
32.1(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? United States v. Lee, No.
14-2010.
Whether the district court erred when it imposed vague and overbroad
discretionary conditions of supervised release regarding supporting dependents,
employment, change in residence, use of alcohol, frequenting drug locations,
association with felons, and notifying third parties of risks associated with Mr.
Lewis’s history and characteristics? United States v. Lewis, No. 14-2075.
Whether the district court erred in imposing unconstitutionally vague and
overbroad special conditions of supervised release and requiring Mr. MirandaSotolongo to pay for the substance abuse treatment programs imposed as special
conditions of supervised release? United States v. Miranda-Sotolongo, No. 14-2753.
Whether the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a condition of
supervised release authorizing suspicionless searches of Mr. Conour’s person,
home, and effects when such condition is not authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)?
United States v. Conour, No. 13-3753 & 14-2629.
Whether the district court erred by imposing non-mandatory supervised release
conditions that were unsupported by any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings and which
excessively infringe on Mr. Conour’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights?
United States v. Conour, No. 13-3753 & 14-2629.
Whether the district court erred by failing to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors before imposing sentence for Mr. DuPriest’s violation of
supervised release? United States v. DuPriest, No. 14-2419.
Whether the district court erred by imposing discretionary supervised release
conditions without making any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings to support them?
United States v. Garcia, No. 14-2368.
62
Whether the district court erred by entering a judgment that included 13
“standard conditions” of supervised release that were not in the PSR and were
not orally pronounced at sentencing? United States v. LaChappelle, No. 14-2721.
Whether the district court procedurally erred by predetermining the sentence
before revoking the defendant’s supervised release and by failing to address the
defendant’s principal non-frivolous arguments in mitigation upon revocation of
his supervised release? United States v. Mares, No. 14-3110.
Did the district court err when it failed to impose supervised release conditions
that were sufficiently tailored toward Mr. Jones? United States v. Jones, No. 142787.
Whether the district court erred by imposing discretionary supervised release
conditions without making any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings to support them?
United States v. Langman, No. 14-2925.
Whether the district court, by not calculating the guidelines range and stating
that it “must” impose the lifetime supervised release recommended by the
guidelines, committed significant procedural error? United States v. Orlando, No.
14-2949.
Whether the standard conditions contained in the Judgment, since they were not
orally pronounced during the sentencing hearing, are null and must be vacated?
United States v. Orlando, No. 14-2949.
Whether the district court erred by imposing discretionary supervised release
conditions without making any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings to support them?
United States v. Orlando, No. 14-2949.
Whether Mr. Lee’s constitutional right to due process and statutory right to
confront adverse witnesses were violated at the hearing to revoke his term of
supervised release where multiple layers of hearsay were admitted into evidence
and the district court failed to balance Mr. Lee’s constitutional rights against the
government’s reasons for presenting hearsay? United States v. Lee, No. 14-2231.
Whether the standard conditions of supervised release, since they were never
orally pronounced at sentencing, are a nullity? United States v. Sanford, No. 142860.
Whether the district court erred by imposing discretionary supervised release
conditions without making any 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) findings to support them?
United States v. Sanford, No. 14-2860.
63
Whether the district court erred by entering a written Judgment where the
special condition of supervised release imposing a payment schedule for
restitution differed from the condition pronounced at the sentencing hearing?
United States v. Lewis, No. 14-2324.
Whether the district court erred by imposing non-mandatory supervised release
conditions that were unsupported by any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings and which
excessively infringe on Ms. Lewis’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights? United
States v. Lewis, No. 14-2324.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Johnson’s motion to
terminate supervised release without considering the required 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors? United States v. Johnson, No. 14-3095.
Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Johnson’s motion after
considering and relying upon an undisclosed report from the probation office?
United States v. Johnson, No. 14-3095.
Whether special condition number 10’s ban on Mr. Raney’s use of a mobile home
is null since the bank was not orally pronounced as part of sentencing? United
States v. Raney, No. 14-3265.
Whether the district court erred by failing to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors when it imposed a sentence comprised of nine months
imprisonment, 24 months supervised release, and supervised release conditions
that included compulsory sale of an RV? United States v. Raney, No. 14-3265.
Whether the district court’s consideration of evidence from a non-testifying
polygraph administrator violated Mr. Raney’s right to confront an adverse
witness under the Fifth Amendment or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
32.1(b)(2)(C)? United States v. Raney, No. 14-3265.
Whether the district court erred when it found that Mr. Raney, by not disclosing
information to his probation officer and giving false information to a polygraph
administrator, violated the supervised release condition that required him to
“answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the
instructions of the probation officer?” United States v. Raney, No. 14-3265.
Whether the district court erred when it ordered 13 standard conditions and 3
special conditions of supervised release without providing any explanation why
it imposed the conditions? United States v. Dearborn, No. 14-3032.
64
Whether the district court erred when it imposed, without justification,
conditions of supervised release which are overly broad, vague, and ambiguous,
and leave considerable justification to the probation officer? United States v. Todd,
No. 14-2836.
Whether the district court erred when it imposed, without justification,
conditions of supervised release which are overly broad, vague, and amibiguous
and leave considerable discretion to the probation officer? United States v. Miller,
No. 13-3657.
Whether the conditions of Taylor’s probation sentence, including a complete
restriction on viewing or listening to legal materials containing sexual content, an
unrestricted grant of search authority over his internet-capable devices, and a
total restriction against contact with minors, contain greater deprivations of
liberty than reasonably necessary to address the statutory purposes of sentencing
in this case? United States v. Taylor, No. 14-3790.
Whether the district court procedurally erred when it principally relied upon
considerations in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) in imposing a sentence upon
revocation of supervised release, when the statute governing revocation
proceedings, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), specifically exempts those considerations?
United States v. Sumrall, No. 14-2732.
Whether, in light of United States v. Thompson, the district court erred by failing to
adhere to the relevant statutory factors in imposing certain discretionary
conditions of supervised release? United States v. Bour, Nos. 14-2211 & 15-1090.
Whether the district court procedurally erred at sentencing when it relied on
inaccurate information to sentence Taylor to 24 months imprisonment at his
revocation proceedings? United States v. Taylor, No. 15-1005.
Whether, in light of United States v. Thompson, the district court erred in imposing
certain discretionary conditions of supervised release without complying with
the statutory requirements in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d) and 3553(a)? United States v.
Hussinger, No. 14-2708.
Whether due process and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) were
violated when the district court relied on statements of an absent witness to
revoke Mr. Ford’s supervised release? United States v. Ford, No. 14-3452.
Whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to remove the
search condition that was intended to be applied to sex offenders? United States v.
Neal, No. 14-3473.
65
Whether the district court erred when imposed standard conditions of
supervised release without proper explanation and reference to the factors under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)? United States v. Neal, No. 14-3473.
Whether the district court’s summary imposition of discretionary supervised
release conditions requires that Mr. Gill’s sentence be vacated and the matter
remanded for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Thompson? United States
v. Gill, No. 14-3205.
Whether the district court erred by not providing any explanation as to why
supervised release was necessary? United States v. Paz, No. 14-2791.
Whether the district court plainly erred in imposing several conditions of
supervised release that are not supported by Douglas’s history and
characteristics, are overly broad, and are likely to reduce the likelihood of his
successful completion of supervised release? United States v. Douglas, No. 151208.
Whether it is reversible error when the district court (1) relied on incorrect and
factually ambiguous past conduct to impose supervised release conditions for
alcohol consumption and mental health treatment; (2) neglected to adequately
define quantity and scope of supervised release conditions related to narcotics;
and (3) failed to be consistent in the oral pronouncement at sentencing and the
subsequent written judgment with regard to supervised release conditions?
United States v. Chatman, No. 14-2519.
Whether the district court erred in imposing overbroad and vague special
conditions of supervised release barring Mr. McLeod from receiving,
transmitting, controlling, or viewing any material containing pornography, from
using the internet or visiting any website for the purposes of sexual arousal, from
having any contact with minor females, requiring Mr. McLeod to install a
computer and internet monitoring program, and requiring him to obtain a GED?
United States v. McLeod, No. 14-2427
Whether, in light of United States v. Thompson, the district court erred by failing to
consider the particular circumstances of this case and Mr. Cureton’s
characteristics when imposing conditions of supervised release and failed to
define such conditions in a way that put Mr. Cureton on notice of proscribed
behavior? United States v. Cureton, Nos. 14-2576 & 14-2586.
Whether the district court erred when as special conditions of supervised release
it imposed a prohibition from Purham associating with any member of any street
66
gang and earing or carrying on his person any sign, symbol, or paraphernalia
associated with gang activity, as well as a requirement that if he is unemployed
for sixty days he shall perform 20 hours of community service per week at the
direction of the probation office until gainfully employed? United States v.
Purham, No. 14-3424
Whether the district court’s failure to make the necessary determinations as to
the length and conditions of Mr. Lewis’s supervised release requires that his
sentence be vacated and that the case be remanded for a full resentencing
hearing? United States v. Lewis, No. 14-3635
Whether the supervised release conditions that are included in the written
judgment, but were not orally pronounced at sentencing, are null and must be
vacated? United States v. Parks, No. 14-3629
Whether the district court’s failure to make the necessary determinations as to
the length and condition of Mr. Parks’s supervised release requires that his
sentence be vacated and that the case be remanded for a full resentencing?
United States v. Parks, No. 14-3629.
Whether certain conditions of supervised release entered on the written
judgment should be vacated because they were not imposed a sentencing?
United States v. Evanick, No. 13-3476
Whether, in light of United States v. Thompson, the district court erred in imposing
certain discretionary conditions of supervised release without complying with
the statutory requirements in 18 U.S.C. § § 3583(d)? United States v. Evanick, No.
13-3476.
Whether a district court can predetermine a sentence after revocation, it must
consider the applicable guidelines, the grounds for revocation, and other
statutory factors? United States v. Dill, No. 15-1425.
Whether the district court erroneously found it was required to impose a
mandatory one year term of supervised release? United States v. Harper, No. 142701.
Whether, in light of United States v. Thompson, the district court erred by failing to
consider the particular circumstances of this case and Ms. Harper’s
characteristics when imposing conditions of supervised release and failed to
define such conditions in a way that put Ms. Harper on notice of proscribed
behavior? United States v. Harper, No. 14-2701.
67
Whether the district court erred at sentencing when it relied on information
about Mr. Armour leaving the jurisdiction, changing residence, lying about
having a third-party custodian, and testing positive for marijuana, given that
those things were not the basis for revocation and no reliable evidence was
presented on those matters? United States v. Armour, No. 15-1604.
Whether the district court erred by basing its revocation sentence on factors that
are not to be considered under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and by omitting factors that
must be considered under that statute? United States v. Armour, No. 15-1604.
Whether the district court erred by not making the necessary determinations as
to the length and conditions of Mr. Armour’s supervised release and whether
Mr. Armour is entitled to a full resentencing hearing as a consequence? United
States v. Armour, No. 15-1604.
Whether the imposition of conditions of supervised release deemed vague and
improper by United States v. Kappes requires a full resentencing or a limited
remand due to the error? United States v. Miller, No. 14-3644.
Whether the discretionary supervised conditions the district court imposed at
sentencing should be vacated and Mr. Armand should be given a full
resentencing hearing? United States v. Armand, No. 14-3757.
Whether, despite the appeal waiver in this case, the unconstitutional supervised
conditions the district court imposed at sentencing should be vacated and Mr.
Jones should be given a full resentencing hearing? United States v. Jones, No. 151129.
Whether, in light of United States v. Thompson, the district court erred in imposing
certain discretionary conditions of supervised release without complying with
the statutory requirements in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d) and 3553(a)? United States v.
Sweeney, No. 14-3785.
XXI.
WAIVER
68