Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendants, Baldwin and Gladys Ihenacho, were the owners and operators of a neighborhood pharmacy. Defendants were convicted of dispensing and shipping drugs to customers pursuant to invalid online prescriptions for Internet pharmacy operations headquartered in the Dominican Republic. Baldwin pled guilty to almost all of the charges. Gladys went to trial, and a jury convicted of her eight counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Baldwin's sentence and Gladys's convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in applying the fraud sentencing guideline to Baldwin and in calculating the loss caused by Baldwin's offenses for purposes of the fraud guideline; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Gladys's convictions for distributing controlled substances, conspiracy, and money laundering. View "United States v. Ihenacho" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud and committing wire fraud for his participation in a wire fraud scheme. Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the district court did not err in admitting files by an attorney involved in the real estate transactions that were the basis of Appellant's indictment; (3) the district court properly admitted evidence related to Appellant's involvement in two real estate transactions that were not the basis of his indictment; and (4) the district court properly sentenced Appellant. View "United States v. Appolon" on Justia Law

Defendant, an engineer for battery producer Electric Vehicles Worldwide (EVW), was convicted of submitting false invoices and conspiring to defraud the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in connection with federal grants to develop a battery for electric mass transit. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the government's evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant intentionally submitted false or fraudulent claims or conspired to defraud the FTA; and (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to give Defendant's requested theory-of-defense jury instructions on condonation and reasonable interpretation of regulations. View "United States v. Willson" on Justia Law

In 2008, a federal grand jury indicted co-defendants Carolyn Kravetz and Boris Levitin on charges stemming from a scheme to defraud restaurant franchisor Dunkin' Brands Inc. Defendants pled guilty in February 2010. Jim Edwards, a journalist who specialized in coverage of the advertising industry for Bnet.com, began covering the proceedings in 2009. During the proceedings, Edwards noticed that various documents were filed under seal in the criminal case. Edwards subsequently moved to unseal the documents. Kravetz opposed the motion, and the district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated in part and remanded, holding (1) a presumption of public access attached to Defendants' sentencing memoranda and sentencing letters submitted by third parties on Defendants' behalf; and (2) therefore, the district court was required to state with greater specificity its reasons for denying Edwards' motion to unseal these documents. View "United States v. Kravetz" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael Powers and John Mahan, who ran an employment agency supplying temporary workers, were convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the functions of the IRS and mail fraud. Powers was also convicted of subscribing false tax returns and Mahan of procuring false tax returns. The tax fraud amounted to $7.5 million. Powers was sentenced to eighty-four months' imprisonment and Mahan to a term of seventy-six months. Defendants' appealed, alleging that the trial court committed errors requiring a new trial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendants' convictions and sentences, holding (1) there was no prejudice to Defendants in the trial court's failure to give an defense instruction on advice of counsel; (2) various witnesses were not allowed to testify as to the ultimate issues, and thus the role of the jury was not invaded; (3) defense counsel was afforded a reasonable opportunity to impeach adverse witnesses; and (4) the district court did not plainly err in excluding testimony by Defendants' witnesses. View "United States v. Mahan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs here were Bryan Behrens, Bryan Behrens Co., Inc., National Investments, Inc., and Thomas Stalnaker. Defendants were Christian Blunk, Berkshire and Blunk, and Abrahams Kaslow & Cassman LLP. In 2008, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against all plaintiffs except Stalnaker. In 2009, the federal government indicted Behrens on charges of securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. Prior to the filing of the indictment, Plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging that Blunk had committed legal malpractice. Plaintiffs also sued Blunk's former partnership and the firm that later employed Blunk. Both civil and criminal cases were proceeding at roughly the same time. In 2010, Behrens pled guilty to securities fraud. Later that year, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants for legal malpractice. The district court found the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and by the doctrine of in pari delicto. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-222. View "Behrens v. Blunk" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in the United States district court, Appellant, an attorney, was convicted on bribery, extortion, and conspiracy charges stemming from his involvement in a scheme to purchase the votes of three corrupt town councilmen on two zoning matters. During the trial, the district court admitted into evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) a number of recorded statements about Appellant made by one of the councilmen to a government informant. On appeal, Appellant argued that some of these statements should have been excluded as hearsay, and challenged the admission of all the statements on constitutional grounds under the Confrontation Clause. Appellant also claimed the district court erred in calculating his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in admitting the challenged statements; and (2) the sentence imposed was appropriate. View "United States v. Ciresi" on Justia Law

Appellants were players in the Boston real estate market. Along with six coconspirators, Appellants devised and executed a mortgage fraud scheme which netted them illegal profits of nearly $2 million between May 2005 and June 2006. Appellants and their coconspirators were found guilty of one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud and with multiple counts of committing wire fraud. In addition, two defendants were found guilty of multiple counts of money laundering. The First Circuit Court Court of Appeals affirmed Appellants' convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Appellants' convictions; (2) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence four charts summarizing the financial data in this case; (3) the district court did not err in instructing the jury that it had a duty to return a guilty verdict if it concluded that the government had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) there was no error in the district court's loss calculation methodology and none in its mathematical application of this methodology. View "United States v. Appolon" on Justia Law

Appellants Walter Teel, Paul Minor and John Whitfield raised several appellate issues arising from their final amended judgments of convictions and sentences entered by the district court after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for resentencing in United States v. Whitfield. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment on remand, holding (1) Appellants' argument that the jury instructions erroneously defined honest-services fraud were barred by the mandate rule; (2) Appellants' argument that the indictment was erroneous for failure to state an offense was also barred by the mandate rule; and (3) the district court did not err in sentencing Minor and Whitfield.

Defendant Donald Branham pleaded guilty to numerous counts of bank fraud and was sentenced to thirty months in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution. The district court issued a writ of garnishment to garnish specified accounts that belonged to Donald and his wife Charlotte. The Branhams moved to dissolve the writ of garnishment on the ground that Charlote's accounts were not community property. They also requested a hearing. The district court denied the Branhams' motions without a hearing. The Branhams appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice for want of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the order appealed from was not a final order.