2. The 11th Circuit granted en banc review in United States v. Roy. This was the case authored by Judge Wilson in which the court granted a new trial for a defendant because the district judge conducted part of the trial without him and his counsel. Chief Judge Ed Carnes dissented. Now the whole court is going to hear the case. Interestingly, the Carneses are using their first names now to distinguish themselves. Here's the beginning line of the order: Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. Soon the Pyrors will be doing the same thing...
3. Judge Tjoflat, joined by Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Marra, has this new opinion in United States v. Campbell, which starts this way:
In this case, Maurice William Campbell, Jr., and several co-conspirators, created, and successfully executed, a scheme to defraud the State of Alabama to the tune of several million dollars. The scheme was ultimately uncovered, and the co-conspirators were separately indicted by a Northern District of Alabama grand jury. Campbell was charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property, and conspiring to commit those offenses.
Campbell pled not guilty and stood trial. Several of his co-conspirators, having pled guilty, testified for the prosecution. The jury believed what they had to say and found Campbell guilty as charged. At sentencing, the District Court departed downward from the sentence range the Sentencing Guidelines prescribed, 262 to 327 months’ confinement, and imposed prison sentences totaling 188 months. The court also ordered him to pay $5.9 million to the State of Alabama in the form of restitution.
Campbell appeals his convictions and sentences. He appeals his convictions on the ground that the Government failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.2 He appeals his sentences on the ground that they are procedurally and substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). We find no merit in Campbell’s challenges to his convictions, and therefore affirm them, because the evidence of guilt, which we set out in considerable detail infra, was overwhelming. We also affirm his sentences, finding no procedural or substantive error.
4. Check out the Dade County Defense Bar Association's Fall 2014 Ethics Seminar, which is being put on by Robert Kuntz. Looks interesting!