Quiet week

 I hope everyone has a wonderful holiday week.

It's pretty slow, so unless something earth shattering happens, I'll see you all next Monday.

--David

“Mr. Mangi is 47 years old. If he feels he is not a viable option for the incoming administration, he can be considered again in the next administration in 2028 at age 51. If he’s not viable for that administration, he can be considered yet again in 2032 at age 55.”

That was Judge Singhal responding to Adeel Mangi's letter withdrawing his nomination for federal judge.

It's hard to summarize Mangi's letter or Judge Singhal's response. Read both of them. 

Here's a clip of Mangi's 4 page, single spaced letter: “When my nomination then came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was prepared to answer any questions about my qualifications, philosophy, or legal issues. I received none. Instead, I was asked questions about Israel, whether I supported Hamas, and whether I celebrated the anniversary of 9/11. Even more revealing, however, was the tone. The underlying premise appeared to be that because I am Muslim, surely I support terrorism and celebrate 9/11. ... [W]e have a fundamentally broken process for choosing federal judges. This is no longer a system for evaluating fitness for judicial office. It is now a channel for the raising of money based on performative McCarthyism before video cameras, and for the dissemination of dark-money-funded attacks that especially target minorities. Nominees pay the price and so too does our nation. Who will give up the rewards of private sector success for public service, if the added price is character assassination and wading through a Senatorial swamp like this one?”

And a portion of Judge Singhal's response: "Mr. Mangi clearly states that what he sets forth are his individual opinions, but the words he uses and the sentiment he conveys are seriously damaging to future qualified minority judicial candidates and require a response." More: "I wish Mr. Mangi had properly continued to fight for the appellate position and done so in a way that would inspire young people to follow his lead.  Had he done so, I would have supported him as I did after his initial nomination.  Instead, his actions show exactly why the advice and consent process and the separate roles of two branches of government to build the third branch are so vital. ... Truly, Mr. Mangi's letter reads like the defendant who tried to trick the court by accepting responsibility only to turn on his lawyer, the victim and the judge once he didn't like the sentence.  It's not the way a federal judge would or should act."

Gotta love Judge Singhal.  His path to the bench was not easy.  Had he written a letter like Mangi's after his first few attempts, we would not have him as one of our judges. I'm thankful he didn't!

Remembering Judge Cooke

 Judge Cooke always had a great holiday party at the courthouse on the 11th Floor -- Just Desserts.

The judges on the 11th Floor have continued the tradition and there was a nice gathering yesterday.  In keeping with Judge Cooke's tradition of holiday giving, participants were able to contribute to programs that were especially meaningful to Judge Cooke.  And you can too! Just hold your phone up to the code and get the link.

Holiday cheer.

 Two wonderful orders to discuss.

1. Almost one year to the day last year, Sam Rabin and Andrea Lopez were in trial on a reverse money laundering scheme where they advanced the affirmative defense of entrapment on behalf of their client.  After a one-week trial, the jury acquitted their client of a conspiracy charge but convicted their client on four of the five substantive money laundering charges.  They requested that the Judge leave their client on bond through Christmas, but the AUSA requested he be remanded.  He was remanded the night before Christmas.  Months later, upon the discovery of the Government’s suppression of favorable Jencks material, Sam and Andrea filed a motion for new trial, which was referred by Judge Moore to a Magistrate Judge. On October 11, 2024, the Magistrate denied the motion for new trial.  The motion alleged, in part, that the undisclosed Jencks contradicted the trial testimony of the undercover agent.  Judge Moore reversed the Magistrate’s report and recommendation and GRANTED their client’s motion for new trial.  He should be home in time for Christmas this year.  The case is USA v. Othoniel Gomez, Case No. 23-20153.  Here is the order.

2. Judge Rudy Ruiz certified to the 11th Circuit his intention to grant a new trial for psychiatrist Mark Agresti, whose case is on appeal from his conviction on Medicare fraud charges arising from drug testing of sober home residents (to prevent and detect relapse). Richard Klugh and former AFPD Jenny Wilson, along with Greg Rosenfeld, successfully argued and established at an evidentiary hearing that the government’s chief witness invented, and perjured himself regarding, core factual support for the government’s theory that the doctor was involved in the fraud. Judge Ruiz will issue a formal order shortly.

"This sentence is unnecessarily long, unjust, and does not meet the statutory purposes of sentencing. But the Court is bound to follow the law until wisdom and common sense prevail."

1. That was Judge Roy Dalton in the Middle District of Florida lamenting his hands being tied in having to sentence a homeless man to 5 years in prison for delivering drugs for $30 on his bicycle.  Here's the whole order, which starts like this:

Mr. Moore is a homeless man who was living in a tent in the woods behind an apartment complex. While doing some odd jobs for one of the residents, Mr. Moore was approached by a stranger, Tyrone Green, who offered him $30 to ride his bicycle to drop off a package that contained drugs. For that, Mr. Moore is going to spend the next five years of his life behind bars. Mr. Moore played the most minor of minor roles in this conspiracy managed by Green—who has not been arrested. Mr. Moore did not know Green, and there is no evidence that he owned a phone, made any phone calls, arranged meetings, discussed drug type, quantity, or value, or did anything else in the conspiracy. Other than the fact that the package contained drugs, Mr. Moore had no other knowledge about the drugs—the type or the weight—or the conspirators. He was Case 6:24-cr-00040-RBD-EJK Document 115 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID 481 2 not even a bottom-rung street-level courier who delivered drugs for Green regularly over the months the conspiracy took place. Rather, Mr. Moore delivered one package—one time—on his bike and got $30 in return. (See Docs. 82, 83, 89.) But despite his low level of culpability, the minimum mandatory sentence for his crime is sixty months’ imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).

2. In other news, ABC and George Stephanopoulos agreed to pay $15 million as part of a settlement with Donald Trump.  It's a pretty impressive win for Trump, who was represented by our very own Richard Klugh, along with Alejandro Brito.  They also get attorney's fees of $1 million.  The case was before Judge Altonaga.  Shortly before the settlement, both Trump and Stephanopoulos were ordered to sit for depositions in the coming weeks.

Judge Altman Featured on Athena Rising Podcast

By John R. Byrne 

Vanessa Johannes and Marissel Descalzo have a great podcast series called "Athena Rising." They've interviewed notable female lawyers and, this season, are interviewing men who have served as mentors to female lawyers, including Willy Ferrer and the blog's own David Markus. They just released an interview with Judge Altman, which covers a variety of topics, including helpful tips on trial strategy. 

Link is below. Enjoy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/athena-rising-the-power-of-the-female-lawyer-collective/id1679384822?i=1000679920281

Will SCOTUS strike down another fraud conviction?

It sure looks like that after argument yesterday in Kousisis, which presented the following question: "Whether a scheme to induce a transaction in property through deception, but which contemplates no harm to any property interest, constitutes a scheme to defraud under the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343."  These fraud cases keep getting reversed by SCOTUS.  It's time that some of our district judges grant motions to dismiss and appellate judges reverse cases with no harm, instead of letting the Supremes do it over and over again.  

The WaPo summarized the oral argument here:

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared divided over whether to uphold the conviction of a government contractor found guilty of defrauding a state transportation program intended to promote diversity, with several conservative justices again expressing concern over how federal prosecutors combat white-collar fraud.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that such crimes were better handled by state prosecutors. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch worried that the federal government’s approach was so broad it could allow, hypothetically, for the prosecution of a babysitter for misleading an employer about how she planned to spend her wages. The court’s eventual ruling in the contracting case could affect how federal prosecutors pursue other fraud cases.

The justices were reviewing the case of Alpha Painting & Construction and a project manager, Stamatios Kousisis, who was convicted of fraud in 2018 and sentenced to 70 months in prison for obtaining a multimillion-dollar contract under false pretenses. The company won a contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to make repairs in Philadelphia to a Schuylkill River bridge and to the 30th Street Train Station that was contingent on the company teaming up with a disadvantaged business for a small percentage of the work to increase diversity in contracting.

Interestingly, it was the liberal wing of the Court trying to defend the crazy broad application of the fraud statute:

“The government wanted a particular person to provide the service,” Sotomayor said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, “Why isn’t this a classic scheme to obtain property under false pretenses?”

Attorney Jeffrey Fisher told the justices that “if there’s no harm that occurs in those transactions, there is no fraud.” ...

The Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed skepticism of federal prosecutions for too broadly applying criminal statutes to combat public corruption and other white-collar crimes.

Last year, the court unanimously overturned the fraud conviction of business executive Louis Ciminelli and others who relied on inside information to win a $750 million development contract as part of former New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo (D)’s Buffalo Billion revitalization project.

In 2020, a unanimous court overturned the convictions of two allies of former New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R) who plotted to cause traffic snarls in a town leading to the George Washington Bridge to punish one of the governor’s rivals.

The conservatives said to leave these types of fraud prosecutions to the states and got into with the government over whether they could charge a babysitter:

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested Monday that those rulings had sent a signal that “the court really doesn’t like the federalization of white-collar prosecutions and wants that to be done in state court and is really hostile to this whole enterprise.”

Roberts echoed those concerns when he said “a lot of these things could be dealt with under state law, and you don’t have to federalize every jot and tittle in a large contract? And that it’s a matter of concern that we’ve expressed in many precedents.” ...

During the discussion of the babysitter hypothetical on Monday, Gorsuch and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh got the government’s lawyer to concede that under its theory, a babysitter could be prosecuted for fraud if she knew she got the job after telling the family she would use the money for college tuition, but instead blew it all on a trip to Cancún.

While Feigin acknowledged the hypothetical babysitter could be charged, he added, “I think the sentencing guidelines would be pretty low.”

“That’s comforting,” Gorsuch quipped.

In response, Sotomayor tried to help the government’s lawyer distinguish between the case of the babysitter and the misrepresentation at issue on Monday as part of a multimillion-dollar contract that specified a particular type of business would perform some of the work.

Sotomayor stressed, “This is not the case of the babysitter.”

Yeah but can they figure out a lunch spot?

 

Here's the full order.