Per United States v. Faris, 2009 WL 3011047 (11th Cir. Sept. 23, 2009)
Charles Faris met an undercover police officer posing as a mother of two young girls in a chat room titled "open minded parents." After Faris arranged to meet the mother and daughters in person, he was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422, using a facility of interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) increases the base offense level if "a participant otherwise unduly influenced a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct."
Relying on binding circuit precedent,United States v. Murrell, the Eleventh affirms the application of the enhancement even though Faris never talked with a minor, only the fictitious minor's parent. (The statute defines minor as including a fictitious person who a cop had told a participant about.) Murell had reasoned that "the efficacy of § 2422(b) would be eviscerated if a defendant could circumvent the statute simply by employing an intermediary to carry out his intended objective."
The Eleventh noted that the Sixth and Seventh Circuits had come out the other way, with the Sixth Circuit reasoning that "The dictionary definition of "undue influence" suggests, by its reference to affecting the mind or action of another, that there must be an actual person who is affected in some way. An undercover law enforcement officer who is not at all persuaded in thought or in deed, therefore, cannot be 'unduly influenced.'"
I am more persuaded by the CA6 and CA7's reasoning. The effectiveness of the statute would not be impaired, contra Murell, because all that is at issue is a sentencing factor, not an element of conviction.
More importantly, the Sentencing Commission was also more persuaded by their reasoning. In May, they adopted an application note to the effect that "subsection (b)(2)(B) does not apply in a case in which the only ‘minor’ involved in the offense is an undercover law enforcement officer."
The CA11 acknowledges the amendment, but notes that it is not effective until November. Until then, Congress could change the Commission's proposed amendment, and the Eleventh Circuit panel is still bound by previous panel precedent. All of this is true, so I think the panel did the right thing in affirming.
I just wonder whether the result would have been the same had a CA2, CA7 or CADC panel been in the exact same situation. These circuits, whether by local rule or custom, have a different approach to precedent than the others. In the CA2,7, and DC, a panel may overrule prior precedent without the necessity for an en banc court. The panel must just pre-circulate its opinion to the court.
In the Seventh Circuit, if a judge of the court disagrees with the new position, they must request rehearing en banc, and a majority of the court must vote for rehearing in order to prevent the new opinion (and overruling of old precedent) from becoming law. In other words, the system has a bias for the new opinion (requiring a majority vote to prevent overruling), rather than for the old opinion (requiring a majority vote to go en banc to potentially overrule it).
Had this case arose in the Seventh Circuit, I could certainly see a panel saying -- yes, we had held the enhancement applicable in the past. But other circuits have disagreed with us, and the Sentencing Commission has weighed in on their side. Given all this, we overrule our precedents and find that Faris did not unduly influence a child.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Split Created: What crime is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor?
Per United States v. Cohn, 2009 WL 3110775 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2009)
Criminal contempt. In a well-reasoned and short per curiam, the Eleventh declares that criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. § 401, is a new category of crime, neither felony nor misdemeanor. The new category: sui generis.
Equity certainly favors the Eleventh's position, but the law does not.
Here's the statutory scheme. 18 U.S.C. § 401 criminalizes contempt of court (misbehavior, disobediance, resistance, et c.), but does not provide a maximum punishment or classification for the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) states that an unclassified offense with the potential for life imprisonment is a Class A felony. So it would seem like criminal conspiracy is a class A felony, since it lacks a maximum term.
The problem is that contempts can be trivial, whereas Class A felonies are always serious. So the Eleventh hangs its hat on stray Supreme Court language declaring the offense "sui generis," and affirmatively holds (for what I imagine is the first time in recent history) that a crime can be neither a felony nor a misdemeanor.
The CA11 splits from the CA9, the only other circuit to have confronted the classification of contempt in a published opinion. The Ninth Circuit had previously held that contempt was a class A misdemeanor based on the Guideline term for obstruction of justice, the most analogous offense. As to this, the Eleventh reasons the Ninth's "method does not address how to classify criminal contempt if a sufficiently analogous guideline is absent. More importantly, maximum penalties are established by statute, not the Sentencing Guidelines."
Much though I like this result (and the opinion), I have to disagree with the reasoning. Congress gets to create and classify crimes. If the legislature decided to make entering a quarantine area without permission (42 U.S.C. §271(a)) a Class A felony, it could do so and courts would be obligated to comply despite stray Supreme Court language stating that regulatory offenses are generally minor.
Here, contempt clearly falls within 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)'s definition of Class A felony, and there is no statutory exception. The best way to achieve equity, while not overly stretching the law, would be for courts to rely on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 to account for trivial contempts, and for Congress to fix the problem, i.e., itself declare contempt sui generis.
Criminal contempt. In a well-reasoned and short per curiam, the Eleventh declares that criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. § 401, is a new category of crime, neither felony nor misdemeanor. The new category: sui generis.
Equity certainly favors the Eleventh's position, but the law does not.
Here's the statutory scheme. 18 U.S.C. § 401 criminalizes contempt of court (misbehavior, disobediance, resistance, et c.), but does not provide a maximum punishment or classification for the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) states that an unclassified offense with the potential for life imprisonment is a Class A felony. So it would seem like criminal conspiracy is a class A felony, since it lacks a maximum term.
The problem is that contempts can be trivial, whereas Class A felonies are always serious. So the Eleventh hangs its hat on stray Supreme Court language declaring the offense "sui generis," and affirmatively holds (for what I imagine is the first time in recent history) that a crime can be neither a felony nor a misdemeanor.
The CA11 splits from the CA9, the only other circuit to have confronted the classification of contempt in a published opinion. The Ninth Circuit had previously held that contempt was a class A misdemeanor based on the Guideline term for obstruction of justice, the most analogous offense. As to this, the Eleventh reasons the Ninth's "method does not address how to classify criminal contempt if a sufficiently analogous guideline is absent. More importantly, maximum penalties are established by statute, not the Sentencing Guidelines."
Much though I like this result (and the opinion), I have to disagree with the reasoning. Congress gets to create and classify crimes. If the legislature decided to make entering a quarantine area without permission (42 U.S.C. §271(a)) a Class A felony, it could do so and courts would be obligated to comply despite stray Supreme Court language stating that regulatory offenses are generally minor.
Here, contempt clearly falls within 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)'s definition of Class A felony, and there is no statutory exception. The best way to achieve equity, while not overly stretching the law, would be for courts to rely on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 to account for trivial contempts, and for Congress to fix the problem, i.e., itself declare contempt sui generis.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
I'm Ba-ack
Kind of. My clerkship is over, and has been for a bit. But my next job doesn't start for another month. I am planning on relaxing and travelling for the next month, but will return to the game in mid-October. Hope the last year has been good for you all, if any of you are still out there.....
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Discontinued Until Further Notice (2009)
Canon 4 of the Code of Ethics for Judicial Employees requires me to consult with my Judge regarding the appropriateness of blogging related to the law. After our conversation, I decided that to continue summarizing other cases might create the appearance of impropriety when the same issues could arise before my chambers. Clerks, like Caesar’s wife, must be beyond reproach.
While I could continue to blog until I start work this fall, I would rather avoid that appearance all together. Therefore, I am discontinuing this blog until after my clerkship ends, at some point in 2009. Thank you to the readers, and to those who have so graciously helped my readership grow.
I am leaving this blog up both because I hope to return, and so that the sidebar remains active to return the favor. If someone wishes to join this blog to write similar case summaries, I would also be interested in that, as I do not believe a passive association with the writing would create any negative appearance -- I would be in the same position as if I was reading a HLR case comment.
While I could continue to blog until I start work this fall, I would rather avoid that appearance all together. Therefore, I am discontinuing this blog until after my clerkship ends, at some point in 2009. Thank you to the readers, and to those who have so graciously helped my readership grow.
I am leaving this blog up both because I hope to return, and so that the sidebar remains active to return the favor. If someone wishes to join this blog to write similar case summaries, I would also be interested in that, as I do not believe a passive association with the writing would create any negative appearance -- I would be in the same position as if I was reading a HLR case comment.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Split Widened: Is Simple Battery a Crime of Physical Force?
Per United States v. Hays, 2008 WL 2108079 (10th Cir. May 20, 2008)
Steven Daniel Hays was convicted of simple battery under Wyoming law in 2003. The Wyoming statute criminalized “unlawfully touch[ing] another in a rude, insolent or angry manner or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to another.” He was then indicted for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Under the federal statute, the previous conviction must have “as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force”. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A). The question in this case is whether the first part of the Wyoming statute – touching another in a rude manner – meets this requirement; because the majority holds that it does not, it did not reach the second part of the statutory definition.
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Seymour, finds that it does not. She holds that physical force, as used in the federal statute, means more than mere physical contact. Rather, “some degree of power or violence must be present”. Judge Seymour candidly notes that the circuits have split on this issue, with the CA 7,9 agreeing and the CAs 1,8, 11 all holding that rude or insolent touching does satisfy the federal requirement of physical force.
Judge Ebel cites these cases in his cogent dissent. He notes that the Wyoming statute does not criminalize mere touching, but rather “rude, insolent or angry” touching – precisely those kinds likely to lead to an escalation of violence. He openly encourages the Supreme Court to resolve the split in note four of his dissent. It will be interesting to see if the United States takes him up on the invitation
Steven Daniel Hays was convicted of simple battery under Wyoming law in 2003. The Wyoming statute criminalized “unlawfully touch[ing] another in a rude, insolent or angry manner or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to another.” He was then indicted for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Under the federal statute, the previous conviction must have “as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force”. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A). The question in this case is whether the first part of the Wyoming statute – touching another in a rude manner – meets this requirement; because the majority holds that it does not, it did not reach the second part of the statutory definition.
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Seymour, finds that it does not. She holds that physical force, as used in the federal statute, means more than mere physical contact. Rather, “some degree of power or violence must be present”. Judge Seymour candidly notes that the circuits have split on this issue, with the CA 7,9 agreeing and the CAs 1,8, 11 all holding that rude or insolent touching does satisfy the federal requirement of physical force.
Judge Ebel cites these cases in his cogent dissent. He notes that the Wyoming statute does not criminalize mere touching, but rather “rude, insolent or angry” touching – precisely those kinds likely to lead to an escalation of violence. He openly encourages the Supreme Court to resolve the split in note four of his dissent. It will be interesting to see if the United States takes him up on the invitation
Welcome Back
The last month has been incredibly busy for me. I attended a college reunion as well as beach week. I finished a sports season, in which my team made it to the sweet sixteen round of the national playoffs before losing by one goal. Finally, and most importantly, I am now engaged.
I made the obvious choice to leave off blogging in the interim. I now rejoin the debate, rejuvenated by my time off. There has been much going on in my time off. I wanted to mourn the passing of my main inspiration – Decision of the Day. Robert Loblaw has performed a great service for almost three years, and deserves much more than the humble praise that I can offer. I also intend to respond, albeit belatedly, to Feddie’s call for ideas.
For now though, I will return to my main occupation – discussing appellate opinions that create or note circuit splits. It is my hope that my regular readers will rejoin me in due course. Please, as always, feel free to drop me an email regarding this blog’s coverage or your interest.
I made the obvious choice to leave off blogging in the interim. I now rejoin the debate, rejuvenated by my time off. There has been much going on in my time off. I wanted to mourn the passing of my main inspiration – Decision of the Day. Robert Loblaw has performed a great service for almost three years, and deserves much more than the humble praise that I can offer. I also intend to respond, albeit belatedly, to Feddie’s call for ideas.
For now though, I will return to my main occupation – discussing appellate opinions that create or note circuit splits. It is my hope that my regular readers will rejoin me in due course. Please, as always, feel free to drop me an email regarding this blog’s coverage or your interest.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Split Widened: Is Consular Notification (Or Notification Of the Availability Consular Notification) An Actionable Individual Right?
Per Mora v. People of N.Y., 2008 WL 1820836 (2d Cir. Apr. 24, 2008)
Medellin made waves when came down, but it turns out the Supreme Court in that case (as with others before it) did not decide an issue that had split the circuits: Whether the Vienna Convention’s provision requiring police officers to notify detainees that they could communicate with their consulate. Instead a majority of the court Court assumed, without so holding, that the Vienna Convention did so. The Circuits have split on this issue. The CAs 4,5,6,9, and now 2 hold that the Vienna Convention does not create judicially-enforceable rights, whereas the CA 7 holds that it does. The separate question of whether the Vienna Convention is self-executing was not raised in this case.
Article 36(b) provides: “if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;”
The CA 7 says that this language is clear that it creates an individually enforceable right; how else can you read “of his rights.” Moreover, the CA 7 argues, this is clearly not a right conferred on the sending State, because its exercise depends on the request of the detainee. As final support for its position, the CA 7 looks to State Department circulars, and DOJ regulations referring to Article 36 as providing an individual right.
The CA 2 disagrees, noting that the obligation to inform a detainee of his rights is, itself, never phrased as a right; nor does this or any other provision of the Vienna Convention state whether private individuals can pursue judicial enforcement of the treaty in the domestic courts of the States-party. The CA 2 also relies on the Preamble to Article 36 and the Convention as a whole, which disclaim any purpose to benefit individuals. Finally, the State Department submitted an amicus brief in conjunction with the Department of Justice urging the conclusion that the Convention does not confer a judicially-enforceable individual right. The CA 2 says the views of the Executive concerning treaty interpretation are entitled to great deference.
As an interesting aside, the panel requested the United States to provide information regarding other states’ practices with regards to private suits for money damages for violations of Article 36. 91 countries replied, 90 of which do not permit such suits to go forward. In addition, the State Department informed the panel that only a handful of countries had interpreted Article 36 as providing an individual right. The opinion does not state, however, how many of the countries had interpreted the Article the other way (i.e. if the handful was 100% or 10% of the countries to have considered the question). Such state practice is meaningful in the interpretation of treaty obligations.
Medellin made waves when came down, but it turns out the Supreme Court in that case (as with others before it) did not decide an issue that had split the circuits: Whether the Vienna Convention’s provision requiring police officers to notify detainees that they could communicate with their consulate. Instead a majority of the court Court assumed, without so holding, that the Vienna Convention did so. The Circuits have split on this issue. The CAs 4,5,6,9, and now 2 hold that the Vienna Convention does not create judicially-enforceable rights, whereas the CA 7 holds that it does. The separate question of whether the Vienna Convention is self-executing was not raised in this case.
Article 36(b) provides: “if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;”
The CA 7 says that this language is clear that it creates an individually enforceable right; how else can you read “of his rights.” Moreover, the CA 7 argues, this is clearly not a right conferred on the sending State, because its exercise depends on the request of the detainee. As final support for its position, the CA 7 looks to State Department circulars, and DOJ regulations referring to Article 36 as providing an individual right.
The CA 2 disagrees, noting that the obligation to inform a detainee of his rights is, itself, never phrased as a right; nor does this or any other provision of the Vienna Convention state whether private individuals can pursue judicial enforcement of the treaty in the domestic courts of the States-party. The CA 2 also relies on the Preamble to Article 36 and the Convention as a whole, which disclaim any purpose to benefit individuals. Finally, the State Department submitted an amicus brief in conjunction with the Department of Justice urging the conclusion that the Convention does not confer a judicially-enforceable individual right. The CA 2 says the views of the Executive concerning treaty interpretation are entitled to great deference.
As an interesting aside, the panel requested the United States to provide information regarding other states’ practices with regards to private suits for money damages for violations of Article 36. 91 countries replied, 90 of which do not permit such suits to go forward. In addition, the State Department informed the panel that only a handful of countries had interpreted Article 36 as providing an individual right. The opinion does not state, however, how many of the countries had interpreted the Article the other way (i.e. if the handful was 100% or 10% of the countries to have considered the question). Such state practice is meaningful in the interpretation of treaty obligations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
