Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In US v. Young, No. 09-3536, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, holding that 1) the evidence supported defendant's jury conviction for attempted enticement of a minor as a reasonable jury could find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; 2) a defendant cannot abandon an attempt once it has been completed; 3) even had defendant established that the government induced his criminal conduct, defendant was predisposed to commit the crime; and 4) because defendant told the fictitious victim that he was not married, although in reality, he had a wife and three children, a two-level enhancement for misrepresentation of identity was appropriate.
In US v. Samuels, No. 09-3244, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's convictions for two counts of distribution of cocaine base and one count of possession of more than fifty grams of cocaine base with the intent to distribute, on the grounds that 1) the government presented substantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of informant witnesses; and 2) prior felony drug convictions are relevant to show intent and knowledge in a drug prosecution when a defendant makes a general denial defense, which necessarily places the defendant's state of mind at issue.
In US v. Winston, No. 09-3004, a prosecution for conspiracy with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, on the grounds that 1) proceedings under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to have essential facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and 2) in Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 91 (2007), the Supreme Court held that a district court may vary from the advisory sentencing guidelines range based solely on the basis of a disagreement with the extent of the crack/powder disparity, but it did not eliminate the disparity altogether nor require a district court to vary from the advisory sentencing guidelines based on the disparity.