Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

C.S., age 17, made threatening statements to a confidential informant in an online chatroom dedicated to discussing terroristic attacks. Law enforcement searched C.S.’s home and cell phone. In his home, agents discovered assault rifles, ammunition, a crossbow, a headscarf, smoke bombs, grenade casings, military-style ammunition vest and gear, and a long-bladed knife. His cell phone revealed Internet searches, literature about making explosives, Islamic Jihadi propaganda videos depicting beheadings, and photos of C.S. posing with his assault rifle while wearing military gear and headscarf. C.S. was adjudicated delinquent, 18 U.S.C. 875(c). During several conversations, C.S. made threats against a local church. Although juvenile proceedings are usually sealed, the court permitted the government to notify the church that it was the subject of a threat and that the party who communicated the threat had been prosecuted. The order did not identify C.S.The Third Circuit affirmed. C.S.’s statements qualified as threats under section 875(c). A rational factfinder could find that a reasonable person could consider C.S.’s statements to be “a serious expression of an intent to inflict bodily injury.” The court did not violate the confidentiality provisions of the Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. 5031-5038), in allowing the government to notify the church of the threats and acted well within its discretion in issuing the notification order. View "United States v. C.S." on Justia Law

Mack, a practicing Muslim, was an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loretto, Pennsylvania, and worked for pay at the prison’s commissary. Mack alleges that he was harassed, based on his religion, by correctional officers Roberts and Venslosky, who supervised the inmates working in the commissary. Mack alleges that he raised these issues with their supervisor, Stephens; that upon overhearing Mack’s oral complaint to Stephens, Roberts told Mack, “[y]ou are not going to be here long”; and that Venslosky fired Mack less than two weeks later. The district court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment on Mack’s First Amendment retaliation claim.The Third Circuit reversed. The court noted that no statute provides a damages remedy for constitutional claims brought against federal officials. Although the Supreme Court recognized an implied damages action for such claims under the Fourth Amendment in 1971 (Bivens), the Court has since recognized an implied damages remedy in only two other instances. In 2017, the Supreme Court cautioned against creating additional implied damages remedies and explicitly declared expansion of Bivens a “disfavored judicial activity.” The Third Circuit declined to expand Bivens to create a damages remedy for Mack’s First Amendment retaliation claim. View "Mack v. Yost" on Justia Law

Downey has long struggled with glaucoma, which can lead to blindness if left uncontrolled. His condition worsened while he was imprisoned at the State Correctional Institution at Waymart, Pennsylvania. Doctors recommended that Downey have surgery expeditiously to save his eyesight. Nothing happened for almost a year, although he repeatedly reached out to prison staff. Surgery came too late; Downey is now blind. Downey sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1999. The district court rejected the claims on summary judgment, concluding that he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a)..The Third Circuit reversed in part. Downey’s claims for monetary relief are not procedurally defaulted. Under the prison’s procedures, a prisoner dealing with an emergency or an urgent situation is not bound by the ordinary procedures specified in the grievance policy; he only needs to alert the closest staff person. The court rejected the prison’s “efforts to downplay the urgency” of Downey’s situation and found that Downey complied with the policy. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the Department of Corrections and its officials on state sovereign immunity grounds, although that defense was not raised before the district court. View "Downey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Pawlowski was convicted of federal program bribery, Travel Act bribery, attempted Hobbs Act extortion, wire and mail fraud, honest services fraud, making false statements to the FBI, and conspiracy. As the mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, he had steered city contracts and provided other favors in exchange for campaign contributions. In May 2020, 19 months into his 15-year sentence, Pawlowski sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1). He suffers from hypertensive heart disease, COPD, shortness of breath, sleep apnea, and has only one lung; those conditions place him at a higher risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19. As of June 19, 2020, at the Danbury, Connecticut facility where he is incarcerated, 98 inmates had tested positive for the virus, one had died and 91 had recovered; 61 staff members had tested positive. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. While Pawlowski’s conditions placed him at increased risk should he contract COVID-19, the district court reasonably concluded that the sentencing factors set out at 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) did not weigh in favor of release. The court noted the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate deterrence. View "United States v. Pawlowski" on Justia Law

In 1998, Pennsylvania and 45 other states entered into a settlement agreement with certain cigarette manufacturers, who agreed to disburse funding to the states to cover tobacco-related healthcare costs. Pennsylvania’s 2001 Tobacco Settlement Act established the "EE Program" to reimburse participating hospitals for “extraordinary expenses” incurred for treating uninsured patients according to a formula. The Department of Human Services (DHS) determines the eligibility of each hospital for EE Program payments. The Pennsylvania Auditor General reported that for Fiscal Years 2008-2012, some participating hospitals received disbursements for unqualified claims, and recommended that DHS claw back funds from overpaid hospitals and redistribute the money to hospitals that had been underpaid. DHS followed that recommendation for fiscal years prior to 2010 but discovered methodological discrepancies and discontinued the process for Fiscal Years 2010-2012.Plaintiffs, on behalf of all “underpaid” hospitals, sued an allegedly overpaid hospital, alleging conspiracy to defraud the EE Program in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1961–1964. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants submitted fraudulent claims for reimbursement, in violation of the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343 (a RICO predicate offense). The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims, finding that the theory of liability adequately alleges proximate causation. No independent factors that accounted for the plaintiffs’ injury and no more immediate victim was better situated to sue. View "St. Lukes Health Network, Inc. v. Lancaster General Hospital" on Justia Law

Seighman pleaded guilty to a counterfeiting conspiracy, a Class D felony carrying a maximum prison term of 60 months. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment followed by 36 months of supervised release. After his release, Seighman bought heroin, tested positive for opiates, and failed to comply with drug treatment. The court revoked Seighman’s supervision and sentenced him to another 24 months’ imprisonment plus 12 months of supervised release. After his second release from prison, Seighman transitioned to Renewal, a residential reentry center. The Probation Office petitioned the court to issue a warrant for Seighman because he brought heroin into Renewal. The Probation Office calculated Seighman’s revocation sentencing range as 21–27 months. Seighman objected, arguing that because his counterfeiting conviction permitted a maximum of 60 months' imprisonment, he could be sentenced to no more than six months (having served 54 months). The Third Circuit affirmed his 24-month sentence. In its 2019 decision, “Haymond,” the Supreme Court found subsection (k) of the supervised release statute (18 U.S.C. 3583) unconstitutional in requiring a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ‘‘not less than 5 years’’ upon a judge’s finding that a defendant ‘‘commit[ted] any’’ listed ‘‘criminal offense,’’ without granting a defendant the rights that accompany a new criminal prosecution. Subsection (g), which Seighman challenged, applies to other offenses and does not limit the judge’s discretion in the same “manner” as subsection (k). View "United States v. Seighman" on Justia Law

In 2001, Birt was arrested following a traffic stop. A state trooper found 186.5 grams of crack cocaine in the trunk. Birt was charged under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Birt pled guilty. His plea agreement stated that “[t]he maximum penalty for [his] offense is imprisonment for a period of 20 years [and] a fine of $1 million dollars,” plus supervised release and collateral consequences, set forth in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C). The district court imposed the 20-year maximum sentence, which the Third Circuit affirmed. In 2012, the district court reduced Birt’s sentence to 210 months under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The Third Circuit affirmed.Birt later sought resentencing under the First Step Act. The district court held that Birt was not convicted of a “covered offense” and was not entitled to relief. The Third Circuit affirmed. “Covered offenses,” under the First Step Act, are offenses that have had their penalty provisions modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. The penalties for Birt’s statute of conviction have not been modified, so the First Step Act has no applicability to Birt’s case. Birt’s statute of conviction is "a tight combination of subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) of section 841, not section 841(a)(1) in isolation or section 841 as a whole." View "United States v. Birt" on Justia Law

In 2006, Harris pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute five grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base and stipulated to the quantity he possessed—33.6 grams. In 2019, Harris sought a reduction of his 210-month sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, 132 Stat. 5222. The district court assumed that Harris was eligible but denied relief, stating that “neither the statutory penalties nor the advisory guidelines range would be affected if [he] were sentenced today given the stipulated drug quantity.”Jackson was convicted in 2004 of the same crime. His indictment charged him with possession with the intent to distribute approximately 48 grams of crack. The jury convicted Jackson of possessing five grams or more, without any specific finding that he possessed 48 grams. In 2019, Jackson moved under section 404 for a reduction of his 300-month sentence. The district court denied relief, determining that he was ineligible.The Third Circuit vacated as to Harris and reversed as to Jackson. Section 404 eligibility turns on a defendant’s statute of conviction, not on his possession of a certain quantity of drugs. Although Harris and Jackson each possessed more than 28 grams of crack, Harris pleaded guilty to and Jackson was convicted of possession of five grams or more; both can seek discretionary reductions of their sentences. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Golubitsky, as a Virgin Islands Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panelist, was appointed counsel for Bellille, an indigent defendant in a multi-defendant RICO prosecution. Golubitsky unsuccessfully moved to withdraw, arguing that he was no longer a CJA panelist, having moved to an in-house counsel role, and was contractually barred from the representation. Weeks later, Golubitsky purportedly started an of-counsel relationship at the DiRuzzo law firm and filed an emergency motion to withdraw as Bellille’s counsel, arguing that DiRuzzo represented Ayala, who was likely to testify against Bellille, which created a conflict of interest. Golubitsky and DiRuzzo explained that Golubitsky was “on [the firm’s] system,” could bill using the firm’s software, and was added to DiRuzzo’s malpractice insurance. Golubitsky worked full-time as in-house counsel while working part-time for DiRuzzo’s Florida firm, litigating four matters together. They had no involvement in the other’s work related to Bellille’s case nor had they shared any information about the case. The court denied Golubitsky’s motion and ordered DiRuzzo and Golubitsky to wall off the latter’s representation of Bellille from DiRuzzo’s representation of Ayala.The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, noting many “factual gaps,” surrounding the relationship between DiRuzzo and Golubitsky and why the relationship was established. The situation cannot be both ways. Either the of-counsel relationship was not genuine and there was no basis for imposing a screen or there was a true of-counsel relationship and a screen alone could not cure the conflict. View "United States v. Bellille" on Justia Law

While imprisoned at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center ()MVCC), Davis, a Jamaican national, requested permission to marry a non-inmate U.S. citizen. MVCC apparently imposed requirements on those wishing to get married, beyond the requirements specified in the Federal Bureau of Prison regulations. Davis alleges that, despite having complied with all requirements, including MVCC’s additional requirements, Warden Wigen denied the request. MVCC almost exclusively houses foreign nationals who have been ordered to be deported or are facing immigration proceedings. Davis claims that federal defendants and officials of GEO, a company that operates private prisons on behalf of the government, conspired to ensure that no MVCC inmate can get married; marriage could complicate, and perhaps stop, removal and other immigration proceedings.The Third Circuit vacated the dismissal of section 1983 claims, reasoning that the complaint did not allege a purely private conspiracy, so a basic premise of the district court’s decision on the availability of relief was erroneous. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Bivens claim as asking for an unsupportable extension of Bivens liability; the Supreme Court has never recognized or been asked to recognize, a Bivens remedy for infringement of the right to marry. The court affirmed the dismissal of other 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 2000d claims. View "Davis v. Samuels" on Justia Law