We strive on providing up the minute information on breaking cases and cases of interest Nationwide.  Feel free to contact us if you want more information on any of these cases and/or if the case of interest may assist you in any manner.

Harris v. City of Saginaw, Michigan

Dockets: 22-1504, 22-1505 
Opinion Date: March 20, 2023
Judge: [Ransey] Guy Cole, Jr. 
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law 

Harris went to the store, argued with a clerk, left the store, and entered the laundromat next door where his friend, Henderson, worked. Harris asserts that while he was between the buildings, the clerk came out, pointed a gun, and taunted him with racial slurs. Following Harris's 911 call, four officers arrived. As shown on bodycams, they expressed disbelief in Harris's report. The store clerk denied having a gun. The store had at least three surveillance cameras but the officers watched footage from only the front door, although Harris had reported that the incident occurred near the back door. Harris wanted to move forward with his report, believing the footage would corroborate his account. The officers indicated that the video revealed Harris had lied and arrested Harris. No officer took Henderson's statement. Detective Busch reviewed the police report and passed it to the prosecutor for charging. 

Harris spent 18 days in jail before being released on bond. Weeks later, the state dropped Harris's false felony report charge; the store clerks failed to appear. Harris sued the City of Saginaw, the officers, and Busch. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity summary judgment to the officers, the grant of qualified immunity to Busch, and the dismissal of Harris's failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims against the city. There is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the officers arrested Harris without probable cause.

********************************

USA v. Sharp 

Docket: 22-20222 
Opinion Date: March 20, 2023
Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod 
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Products Liability 

Defendant appealed his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of felon in possession of a firearm. He argued that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), which applies only when a defendant's firearm “had an altered or obliterated serial number,” because there is no evidence that his rifle ever had a serial number.
 
The Fifth Circuit agreed and vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded. The court explained that it agreed that Section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) does not apply when there is no evidence that the firearm ever had a serial number. The text of Section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) is clear that it only applies when the firearm “had an altered or obliterated serial number.” U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B). And in ordinary parlance, something cannot be “altered or obliterated” if it never existed in the first place. Consequently, to apply an upward enhancement under the provision, the government must present evidence showing that Defendant's rifle once had a serial number. Because there was no such evidence, the court held that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement under Section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B).

********************************

United States v. Flores-Nater 

Docket: 21-1856 
Opinion Date: March 20, 2023
Judge: Selya 
Areas of Law: Criminal Law 

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the sentencing court sentencing Defendant to an upwardly variant thirty-year sentence for his conviction for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, holding that remand was required in this case.

After a hearing, the district court imposed a thirty-year incarcerate sentence reflecting a twenty-year upward variance for Defendant's conviction. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence as substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding that the district court failed to articulate a plausible sentencing rationale, requiring that Defendant's sentence be vacated and this case remanded for resentencing.

********************************

United States v. Santiago 

Docket: 20-1708 
Opinion Date: March 20, 2023
Judge: David J. Barron 
Areas of Law: Criminal Law 

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for distributing or possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the government presented insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction and that various trial errors occurred, requiring reversal of his conviction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial provided a sufficient basis for a rational juror to find Defendant guilty of violating 21 U.S.C. 841; and (2) none of Defendant's claimed trial errors had merit.

Schedule a call for a free consultation on any questions you may have: