Nix v. Major League Baseball 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Docket: 22-20364 
Opinion Date: March 16, 2023
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts, Personal Injury 

MLB and the MLBPA began an investigation into the sale and use of performance-enhancing drugs; Plaintiff and his company were among those investigated. Since then, Plaintiff has filed a series of lawsuits across the country against MLB, the MLBPA, their members and employees, and an increasing number of assorted defendants. This appeal involves the latest in a series of unsuccessful lawsuits by Plaintiff, proceeding pro se. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in five separate motions; MLB and the MLBPA also moved for sanctions. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's claims, denied him leave to amend, and imposed sanctions.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed and granted Defendants' motion for sanctions. The court ordered that no pleading or lawsuit in any federal court within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit shall be filed by, or on behalf of, Plaintiff, his affiliates, or his related entities against any of the defendants in this suit without first obtaining the permission of the court in which he seeks to file. He must attach a copy of this opinion to any such request for permission. The court explained that aggravating the situation is Plaintiff's patent bad faith. Plaintiff was not only on notice from the district court that he was a vexatious litigant and that his lawsuit was frivolous, but he was also on notice from two other courts that have imposed sanctions on him (a California federal court and a New York state court) that his claims have no merit.
***********************

Douglas v. Hirshon 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Docket: 22-1483
Opinion Date: March 21, 2023
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Real Estate & Property Law 

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing in part Plaintiffs' claims that a subset of Defendants participated in a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 and that this conspiracy injured Plaintiffs, holding that there was no error.

Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Defendants engaged in several interrelated schemes to defraud Plaintiffs of Maine real estate. The district court dismissed the RICO conspiracy claim against two defendants, David Hirshon and LOSU, LLC, and denied Plaintiffs' motion seeking limited discovery from Hirshon. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) ruling that the complaint failed to state a RICO conspiracy claim against Hirshon and LOSU; (2) declining to consider certain documents outside the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss; and (3) denying Plaintiffs discovery.
************************

United States v. Flores-Nater 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Docket: 21-1856 
Opinion Date: March 20, 2023
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 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Docket: 20-1708
Opinion Date: March 20, 2023
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.
**********************

United States v. Spinks 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Docket: 21-1796 
Opinion Date: March 23, 2023
Areas of Law: Criminal Law 

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal from the 115-month sentence imposed by the district court upon his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and heroin, holding that Appellant's challenge to his sentence was barred.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and heroin. As part of his plea agreement, Appellant agreed to waive his right to appeal. The district court imposed a sentence of 115 months of imprisonment. The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding (1) contrary to Appellant's contention, the language of the plea agreement's waiver provision covered this appeal; and (2) enforcing the waiver did not constitute a miscarriage of justice because it was entered into knowingly.
*************************

United States v. Lewis 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Docket: 21-838 
Opinion Date: March 21, 2023
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law 

Defendant was found guilty of gun possession in furtherance of drug trafficking and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing that evidence regarding a firearm and marijuana should have been suppressed because the warrant pursuant to which the search of his second-floor apartment in a triplex was conducted did not authorize a search of the shared back porch where this evidence was found. He also challenged the sufficiency of the government's evidence of his possession in furtherance of drug trafficking and the application of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. 
 
The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that as to the suppression issue, although the court rejects any categorical rule that the Fourth Amendment always allows warrantless searches of all shared areas in multi-unit buildings, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion because he failed to carry his burden to show that his Fourth Amendment rights extended to the shared back porch of the triplex where he lived. Because the court also concluded the evidence was sufficient to convict him of possession of a firearm in furtherance of marijuana trafficking, and the application of the obstruction enhancement was appropriate, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

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

Mack v. Yost 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Docket: 21-2472 
Opinion Date: March 21, 2023
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law 

When Mack was incarcerated, he worked at the prison commissary, where two supervising prison guards singled him out for harassment because of his Muslim faith. When Mack went to the back of the commissary to pray during shift breaks, the guards followed him and interfered with his prayers by making noises, talking loudly, and kicking boxes. Fearing retaliation if he continued to pray at work, Mack stopped doing so. The guards nevertheless engineered his termination from his commissary job. He sued. 

The district court granted the guards summary judgment on Mack's lone surviving claim, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, citing qualified immunity. The Third Circuit vacated. While, as a matter of law, qualified immunity can be asserted as a defense under RFRA, the officers have not met their burden of establishing that defense. Framed in the light most favorable to Mack, evidence of the RFRA violation here involved significant, deliberate, repeated, and unjustified interference by prison officials with Mack's ability to pray as required by his faith. If different facts come out at trial, the officers may again raise qualified immunity.
***************************

United States v. Rivera 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Docket: 21-3133 
Opinion Date: March 17, 2023
Areas of Law: Criminal Law 

Rivera, a Newark police officer from 1993-2018, collected $78,941 in bribes from three brothel owners in exchange for protecting the owners from arrest, using law enforcement resources to assist them, and making things difficult for competing brothels. Rivera did not report the income from the bribes, for which he should have paid $17,408 in federal taxes. He was indicted on 14 counts. Rivera pleaded guilty to accepting corrupt payments with the intent to be influenced and rewarded, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B)–(2), and aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2). The government agreed to dismiss the remaining counts if Rivera pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 46 months. The plea agreement included an appellate waiver that Rivera attested he read and fully understood.

Nine months after the court “conditionally” accepted his plea, Rivera moved to withdraw his plea, claiming the court had deferred acceptance of it until the sentencing, which had not occurred. He argued Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d) permitted him to withdraw his plea “for any reason or no reason.” The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Rivera's motion. The district court stated that while it had deferred acceptance of the plea agreement, it had accepted the plea itself, which could not be withdrawn absent “a fair and just reason.” The Third Circuit enforce the waiver of Rivera's right to appeal.
**************************

US v. Marshall Cohen 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Docket: 21-4612 
Opinion Date: March 20, 2023
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law 

Defendant pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography and was sentenced to five years in prison followed by five years of supervised release. The sentencing court later agreed to transfer Defendant's supervision to South Carolina so long as he consented to new conditions. When the probation officer told Defendant's treatment provider, the provider responded that Cohen's behavior violated the program's pornography rules and would be raised at an upcoming group therapy session. The district court directed probation to issue a warrant for Defendant's arrest for violating the terms of his supervised release. At the revocation hearing, Defendant admitted trading photos of his erect penis for pictures of undressed women during sexually explicit conversations but argued his behavior did not violate his supervised release conditions. The district court revoked Defendant's release. The district court sentenced Defendant to time served followed by lifetime supervision, during which he would be subject to various special conditions.
 
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the revocation of Defendant's supervised release and the imposition of lifetime supervision. The court vacated the first clause of special condition eleven and remanded for entry of a modified judgment striking that clause. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects and remanded for further proceedings. The court reasoned that because the district court identified no other basis for concluding Defendant violated the participation condition, its determination on that point was legally erroneous.

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

USA v. Gonzalez 
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Docket: 22-20158 
Opinion Date: March 21, 2023
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, White Collar Crime 

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity. In the plea agreement, Defendant and the government agreed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), that a sentence of 360 months imprisonment was appropriate. However, Defendant also filed a sentencing memorandum arguing that the district court should depart or vary downwards by 60- months from the agreed-upon 360-month sentence to account for five years that Defendant was detained in administrative segregation prior to his plea. The district court accepted Defendant's plea, which bound the district court under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) to sentence Defendant to the agreed-upon sentence. The district court sentenced Defendant at the same hearing to the 360-month term of imprisonment specified in the plea agreement. Before doing so, the district court denied Defendant's request for the 60-month downward variance. On appeal, Defendant argued that his 360-month sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly “account for the five years of solitary confinement” that Defendant endured before his rearraignment.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that at the sentencing hearing, the district court noted Defendant's motion for a downward variance based on his time spent in administrative segregation and denied the motion because of “the defendant's role in the offense.” Given Defendant's involvement in attempted and completed murders in the course of the racketeering conspiracy, the court wrote that it cannot say that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Moreover, Defendant's argument on appeal ignores that he got the benefit of his bargain with the government.

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

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