Issues Currently Pending In Criminal Cases in the Seventh Circuit
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
© Copyright 2024