Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Doyle, Charles" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Overseas Crime in the United States [July 29, 2022]
From the Document: "How do you commit a crime in the United States when you have never been here? According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) in 'United States v. Elbaz' [hyperlink], you can commit a crime in the United States without being physically present by phoning it in, even though the crime in question, wire fraud [hyperlink], only applies domestically. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit recently held that the wire fraud statute could be applied to a defendant's domestic conduct in using wires located in the United States to defraud victims in the United States without having to be physically present in the United States."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2022-07-29
-
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Federal Aggravated Identity Theft [Updated July 15, 2022]
From the Summary: "Aggravated identity theft is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for two years or by imprisonment for five years, if it relates to a terrorism offense. At least thus far, the government has rarely prosecuted the five-year terrorism form of the offense. The two-year offense occurs when an individual knowingly possesses, uses, or transfers the means of identification of another person, without lawful authority to do so, during and in relation to one of more than 60 predicate federal felony offenses (18 U.S.C. [United States Code] § [section] 1028A). Section 1028A has the effect of establishing a mandatory minimum sentence for those predicate felony offenses when they involve identity theft. A sentencing court has the discretion not to 'stack' or pancake multiple aggravated identity theft counts and, as with other mandatory minimums, may impose a sentence of less than the mandatory minimum at the request of the prosecution based on the defendant's substantial assistance. More than half of the judges responding to a United States Sentence Commission survey felt the two-year mandatory minimum penalty was generally appropriate. The Commission's report on mandatory minimum sentencing statutes is mildly complimentary of the provision."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2022-07-15
-
Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions [Updated July 5, 2022]
From the Introduction: "The United States Code houses hundreds of offenses punishable by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Although only a handful of these mandatory minimum offenses are prosecuted with any regularity, drug trafficking offenses accounted for over three-quarters of the total. Congress has created three procedures that make punishment for these offenses a little less mandatory. One, the so-called safety valve (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)), permits a sentencing court to disregard a statutory minimum sentence for the benefit of a low-level, nonviolent, cooperative defendant with a minimal prior criminal record, convicted under several mandatory minimum controlled substance offenses. The other two, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, afford a sentencing court comparable latitude but only on the motion of the prosecutor, based on the defendant's substantial assistance to the government, and without regard to the offense charged."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2022-07-05
-
Congress's Foreign Commerce Clause Power Questioned [June 23, 2022]
From the Document: "On May 5, 2022, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the panel) held [hyperlink] that the federal sex tourism statute, 18 U.S.C. [United States Code] § 2423(c) [hyperlink], outlawing overseas child molestation, exceeds Congress's legislative authority under the Constitution's Foreign Commerce Clause, but remains viable under treaty-implementing constitutional provisions. The opinion is at odds with those of other federal appellate decisions. It is also cast in language that invites the Supreme Court to revisit its treaty-implementing and Interstate Commerce Clause 'substantial effect' jurisprudence."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2022-06-23
-
SORNA: A Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (Failure to Register as a Sex Offender) [Updated November 5, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Federal law punishes convicted sex offenders if they fail to register or to update their registration as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) demands. The basic offense under Section 2250(a) consists of three elements: (1) a continuing obligation to report to the authorities in any jurisdiction in which the individual resides, works, or attends school; (2) the knowing failure to comply with registration requirements; and (3) a jurisdictional element, i.e., (a) an obligation to register as a consequence of a prior qualifying federal conviction or (b)(i) travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or (ii) travel into or out of Indian Country, or (c) residence in Indian Country. Violators face imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The registration offense carries an additional penalty of imprisonment for not more than 30 years, but not less than 5 years, if the offender is also guilty of a federal crime of violence. Federal law also punishes overseas travel coupled with a failure to register that intent. The elements of this shadow or supplemental offense, Section 2250(b), are: (1) an obligation to register; (2) a knowing failure to report an intent to travel internationally; and (3) engaging in or attempting to engage in international travel. The affirmative defense and sentencing provisions are the same as those that apply to the original offense."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-11-05
-
SORNA: An Abridged Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (Failure to Register as a Sex Offender) [Updated November 5, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Federal law punishes convicted sex offenders if they fail to register or to update their registration as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) demands. The basic offense under Section 2250(a) consists of three elements: (1) a continuing obligation to report to the authorities in any jurisdiction in which the individual resides, works, or attends school; (2) the knowing failure to comply with registration requirements; and (3) a jurisdictional element, i.e., (a) an obligation to register as a consequence of a prior qualifying federal conviction or (b)(i) travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or (ii) travel into or out of Indian Country, or (c) residence in Indian Country. Violators face imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The registration offense carries an additional penalty of imprisonment for not more than 30 years, but not less than 5 years, if the offender is also guilty of a federal crime of violence. Federal law also punishes overseas travel coupled with a failure to register that intent. The elements of this shadow or supplemental offense, Section 2250(b), are: (1) an obligation to register; (2) a knowing failure to report an intent to travel internationally; and (3) engaging in or attempting to engage in international travel. The affirmative defense and sentencing provisions are the same as those that apply to the original offense. The Justice Department indicates that 18 states, 4 territories, and numerous tribes are now in substantial compliance with the 2006 legislation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-11-05
-
USA PATRIOT Act at 20: Sneak and Peek Searches [October 27, 2021]
From the Document: "President George W. Bush signed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 ('USA PATRIOT Act' or Act) on October 26, 2001. Section 213 [hyperlink] of the Act, enacted as part of the legislative response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, authorizes sneak and peek search warrants. 'Sneak and peek' refers to the unannounced execution of a warrant on premises where officers observe, examine, measure, conduct tests, and otherwise surreptitiously search, but do not seize tangible property, and where officers thereafter delay notice of the search for 30 days. Notice permits an individual to challenge the legality of the search. It could also lead to flight, destruction of evidence, or placing a witness in peril. In FY2020, under the authority of Section 213, courts issued close to 20,000 such 30-day, delayed-notice search warrants, and approved extended delayed notice beyond 30 days in more than 10,000 cases. Drug cases accounted for more than 70% of the total number of the delayed-notice warrants issued. Authorities used delayed-notice warrants in fewer than 250 terrorism investigations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-10-27
-
Supervised Release (Parole): An Overview of Federal Law [Updated September 28, 2021]
From the Summary: "Federal courts sentence almost 75% of the defendants convicted of federal offenses to a term of supervised release. A term of supervised release is a period following a defendant's release from prison when a probation officer monitors the defendant to ensure compliance with the conditions for the defendant's release. Under some circumstances, the court may terminate the term of supervised release, extend it, or revoke it. Supervised release replaces parole for federal crimes committed after November 1, 1987. Like parole, supervised release is a period of restricted freedom following a defendant's release from prison. The nature of supervision and the conditions imposed during supervised release are similar to those that applied in the earlier system of federal parole. However, while parole operates in lieu of the remainder of an unexpired prison term, supervised release begins only after a defendant has completed his full prison sentence. Where revocation of parole could result in a defendant's return to prison to finish out his original sentence, revocation of supervised release can lead to a return to prison for a term in addition to that imposed for the defendant's original sentence. A sentencing court determines the duration and conditions for a defendant's supervised release at the time of initial sentencing. As a general rule, federal law limits the maximum duration of supervised release to five years, although in the case of serious drug, sex, and terrorism-related offenses it sometimes permits, and sometimes mandates, supervision for a term of any duration or for life."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-09-28
-
Supervised Release (Parole): An Abbreviated Outline of Federal Law [Updated September 28, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Federal courts sentence close to three quarters (72.9%) of the defendants convicted of federal offenses to a term of supervised release. Supervised release is the successor to parole in the federal criminal justice system. In the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act, Congress eliminated parole in future cases to create a more determinate federal sentencing structure. In its place, Congress instituted a system that includes supervised release, which applies to all federal crimes committed after November 1, 1987. Both parole and supervised release call for a period of supervision following release from prison and for a return to prison upon a failure to observe designated conditions. Parole ordinarily stands in lieu of a portion of the original term of imprisonment, while supervised release begins only after full service of the original term (less any 'good time' credits). Parole restrictions last no longer than the remainder of a defendant's original sentence. Supervised release restrictions can last for the remainder of a defendant's life, although the court may modify the conditions at any time and may terminate supervised release after a year. Because of their differences, some commentators and judges have highlighted the way that supervised release works differently from parole. Differences and critics notwithstanding, supervised release is now a regular feature of sentencing in the federal system. Parole is not."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-09-28
-
RICO: An Abridged Sketch [Updated August 3, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Congress enacted the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) provisions as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Despite its name and origin, RICO is not limited to 'mobsters' or members of 'organized crime,' as those terms are popularly understood. Rather, it covers those activities that Congress felt characterized the conduct of organized crime, no matter who actually engages in them. RICO builds on other crimes. It enlarges the civil and criminal consequences of the patterned commission of other state and federal offenses (otherwise known as predicate offenses or racketeering activity), making it a crime to be a criminal, under certain circumstances."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-08-03
-
RICO: A Brief Sketch [Updated August 3, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Congress enacted the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) provisions as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Despite its name and origin, RICO is not limited to 'mobsters' or members of 'organized crime,' as those terms are popularly understood. Rather, it covers those activities which Congress felt characterized the conduct of organized crime, no matter who actually engages in them. RICO builds on other crimes. It enlarges the civil and criminal consequences of the patterned commission of other state and federal offenses (otherwise known as predicate offenses or racketeering activity), making it a crime to be a criminal, under certain circumstances."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-08-03
-
Crime Victims' Rights Act: A Summary and Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [Updated June 8, 2021]
From the Summary: "Section 3771 of Title 18 of the 'United States Code' is a statutory bill of rights for the victims of crimes committed in violation of federal law or the laws of the District of Columbia. It defines a victim as anyone directly and proximately harmed by such an offense, individuals and legal entities alike. It does not appear to otherwise include family members of a deceased, child, or incapacitated victim except in a representative capacity. Numbered among the rights it conveys are: (1) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) the right to notification of public court and parole proceedings and of any release of the accused; (3) the right not to be excluded from public court proceedings under most circumstances; (4) the right to be heard in public court proceedings relating to bail, the acceptance of a plea bargain, sentencing, or parole; (5) the right to confer with the prosecutor; (6) the right to restitution under the law; (7) the right to proceedings free from unwarranted delays; (8) the right to be treated fairly and with respect to one's dignity and privacy; (9) the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement; and (10) the right to be informed of the statutory rights and services to which one is entitled. The section directs the federal courts and law enforcement officials to see to it that the rights it creates are honored. Both victims and prosecutors may assert the rights and seek review from the appellate courts should the rights be initially denied."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-06-08
-
Crime Victims' Rights Act: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [Updated June 8, 2021]
From the Summary: "Section 3771 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code is a statutory bill of rights for the victims of crimes committed in violation of federal law or the laws of the District of Columbia. It defines a victim as anyone directly and proximately harmed by such an offense, individuals and legal entities alike. It does not appear to otherwise include family members of a deceased, child, or incapacitated victim except in a representative capacity. Numbered among the rights it conveys are: (1) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) the right to notification of public court and parole proceedings and of any release of the accused; (3) the right not to be excluded from public court proceedings under most circumstances; (4) the right to be heard in public court proceedings relating to bail, the acceptance of a plea bargain, sentencing, or parole; (5) the right to confer with the prosecutor; (6) the right to restitution under the law; (7) the right to proceedings free from unwarranted delays; (8) the right to be treated fairly and with respect to one's dignity and privacy; (9) the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement; and (10) the right to be informed of the statutory rights and services to which one is entitled. The section directs the federal courts and law enforcement officials to see to it that the rights it creates are honored."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-06-08
-
Qui Tam: An Abridged Look at the False Claims Act and Related Federal Statutes [Updated April 26, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Qui tam is a whistleblower concept. It is the process whereby an individual sues or prosecutes in the name of the government and shares in the proceeds of any successful litigation or settlement. Although frequently punitive, it is generally a civil proceeding. Unlike antitrust, RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act], and other federal punitive-damage, private-attorney-general provisions, the individual who brings the suit in the name of the United States (called a relator) need not have been a victim of the misconduct giving rise to the litigation. The name qui tam is the shortened version of an oft-abbreviated Latin phrase which roughly translates to 'he who prosecutes for himself as well as for the King.' [...] [Q]ui tam has been authorized by legislative bodies when they consider the enforcement of some law beyond the unaided capacity or interest of authorized law enforcement officials. Best known of the contemporary members of the line is the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733). From 1986 until expansion of the Act in 2009, Justice Department recoveries totaled in excess of $20 billion. Since then, the Justice Department has recovered over $40 billion, including over $3 billion in FY 2019. This is a brief discussion of the history of federal qui tam provisions; of the two existing federal qui tam statutes--the False Claims Act and an Indian protection provision--and of the constitutional questions raised by federal qui tam provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-04-26
-
Qui Tam: The False Claims Act and Related Federal Statutes [Updated April 26, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Qui tam is a whistleblower concept. It is the process whereby an individual sues or prosecutes in the name of the government and shares in the proceeds of any successful litigation or settlement. Although frequently punitive, it is generally a civil proceeding. Unlike antitrust, RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act], and other federal punitive-damage, private-attorney-general provisions, the individual who brings the suit in the name of the United States (called a relator) need not have been a victim of the misconduct giving rise to the litigation. The name qui tam is the shortened version of an oft abbreviated Latin phrase which roughly translates to 'he who prosecutes for himself as well as for the King.' Qui tam comes to us from before the dawn of the common law. Reviled at various times throughout the ages as a breeding ground for 'viperous vermin' and parasites, qui tam has been authorized by legislative bodies when they consider the enforcement of some law beyond the unaided capacity or interest of authorized law enforcement officials. Best known of the contemporary members of the line is the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733). From 1986 until expansion of the Act in 2009, Justice Department recoveries totaled in excess of $20 billion. Since then, the Justice Department has recovered over $40 billion, including over $3 billion in FY2019. This report discusses the history of federal qui tam provisions; the two existing federal qui tam statutes--the False Claims Act and an Indian protection provision; and the constitutional questions raised by federal qui tam provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-04-26
-
Time is Time, but Money is Money [May 26, 2020]
From the Introduction: "In 'United States v. Saccoccia', the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (First Circuit) recently refused to vacate a 1993 judgment ordering Stephen Saccoccia--who is serving a 660-year prison sentence for money laundering--to forfeit $136 million to the government, the amount of money that Saccoccia and others had laundered through bank accounts that Saccoccia controlled. Saccoccia did not ask the court to overturn his convictions or to shorten his prison sentence. He sought only the return of the $136 million he forfeited as a consequence of his convictions. Saccoccia argued that the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in 'United States v. Honeycutt'--which held that the doctrine of joint-and-several liability does not apply to federal forfeiture actions arising from drug crimes--should be read to retroactively invalidate the forfeiture order in his case. The First Circuit rejected that argument, holding that Saccoccia would not be entitled to relief even if 'Honeycutt' applied retroactively."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-05-26
-
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Survives Renewed Constitutional Challenges [May 19, 2020]
From the Introduction: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) in 'United States v. Wass' recently overturned a district court decision that dismissed on constitutional grounds an indictment for violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court disregarded binding precedents in finding that the application of SORNA to Wass undermined the defendant's nondelegation doctrine and ex post facto violation arguments."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-05-19
-
Attempt: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law [Updated May 13, 2020]
From the Summary: "Attempt is the incomplete form of some other underlying offense. Unlike state law, federal law does not feature a general attempt statute. Instead, federal law outlaws the attempt to commit a number of federal underlying offenses on an individual basis. Occasionally, federal law treats attempt-like conduct as an underlying offense; outlawing possession of drugs with intent to traffic, for instance. One way or another, it is a federal crime to attempt to commit nearly all of the most frequently occurring federal offenses. Attempt consists of two elements. One is the intent to commit the underlying offense. The other is taking some substantial step, beyond mere preparation, collaborative of the intent to commit the underlying offense. The line between mere preparation and a substantial step can be hard to identify. Some suggest that the more egregious the underlying offense, the sooner preparation will become a substantial step."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-05-13
-
Attempt: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law [Updated May 13, 2020]
From the Summary: "Attempt is the incomplete form of some other underlying offense. Unlike state law, federal law does not feature a general attempt statute. Instead, federal law outlaws the attempt to commit a number of federal underlying offenses on an individual basis. Occasionally, federal law treats attempt-like conduct as an underlying offense; outlawing possession of drugs with intent to traffic, for instance. One way or another, it is a federal crime to attempt to commit nearly all of the most frequently occurring federal offenses. Attempt consists of two elements. One is the intent to commit the underlying offense. The other is taking some substantial step, beyond mere preparation, collaborative of the intent to commit the underlying offense. The line between mere preparation and a substantial step can be hard to identify. Some suggest that the more egregious the underlying offense, the sooner preparation will become a substantial step."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-05-13
-
High Court Tosses Bridgegate Convictions [Updated May 8, 2020]
From the Update: "On May 7, 2020, a unanimous Supreme Court threw out the federal fraud convictions of two former New Jersey officials whose politically motivated scheme redirected access to toll lanes on the George Washington Bridge between New Jersey and New York leading to gridlock. The federal fraud statutes at issue condemn schemes to obtain money or property. The High Court concluded that the 'property' envisioned does not include a governmental entity's interest in the regulatory allocation of its resources, such as access to lanes on its toll bridges; nor does it include the value of the services of public employees whose efforts are incidental to implementing such a regulatory choice. As the Supreme Court reasoned, '[t]o rule otherwise would undercut [the] Court's oft-repeated instruction: Federal prosecutors may not use property fraud statutes to set[] standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-05-08
-
Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview [Updated April 3, 2020]
From the Introduction: "'Almost every headline-grabbing prosecution has involved a conspiracy charge.' Terrorists, drug traffickers, mafia members, and corrupt corporate executives have one thing in common: most are conspirators subject to federal prosecution. Federal conspiracy laws rest on the belief that criminal schemes are equally or more reprehensible than are the substantive offenses to which they are devoted. The Supreme Court has explained that a 'collective criminal agreement--[a] partnership in crime--presents a greater potential threat to the public than individual delicts. Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality.' Moreover, observed the Court, '[g]roup association for criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish. Nor is the danger of a conspiratorial group limited to the particular end toward which it has embarked.' Finally, '[c]ombination in crime makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed.' In sum, 'the danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offense which is the immediate aim of the enterprise.' Congress and the courts have fashioned federal conspiracy law accordingly."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-04-03
-
Federal Conspiracy Law: An Abbreviated Overview [Updated April 3, 2020]
From the Introduction: "'Almost every headline-grabbing prosecution has involved a conspiracy charge.' Terrorists, drug traffickers, mafia members, and corrupt corporate executives have one thing in common: most are conspirators subject to federal prosecution. Federal conspiracy laws rest on the belief that criminal schemes are equally or more reprehensible than are the substantive offenses to which they are devoted. The Supreme Court has explained that a 'collective criminal agreement--[a] partnership in crime--presents a greater potential threat to the public than individual delicts. Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality.' Moreover, observed the Court, '[g]roup association for criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish. Nor is the danger of a conspiratorial group limited to the particular end toward which it has embarked.' Finally, '[c]ombination in crime makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed.' In sum, 'the danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offense which is the immediate aim of the enterprise.'Congress and the courts have fashioned federal conspiracy law accordingly."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-04-03
-
Red Army Equifax Hackers Indicted [March 10, 2020]
From the Document: "A federal grand jury has indicted four members of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) for hacking into the Equifax computer system and stealing the personal identifying information of 'nearly 150 million Americans.' The indictments charge offenses under federal wire fraud, computer intrusion, economic espionage, and conspiracy laws. Attorney General Barr's statement announcing the indictment noted that 80% of federal economic espionage prosecutions have implicated the Chinese government. The indictment presents a partial view of the criminal law consequences that may attend a mass data breach, but the indictment is likely designed for purposes other than eventual prosecution."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-03-10
-
Is There Liability for Cross-Border Shooting? [Updated February 26, 2020]
From the Background: "Although many of the facts are in dispute, all parties seem to agree that Border Patrol Agent Mesa shot and killed Sergio Hernandez across the U.S.-Mexico border. The boy's parents sued Agent Mesa, the United States, and several federal agencies under various theories. The district court dismissed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Alien Tort Statute. The boy's parents also asserted a 'Bivens' cause of action for violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. They contended unsuccessfully that the shooting and death constituted use of excessive force and thus an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and a substantive due process violation under the Fifth Amendment. Agent Mesa for his part invoked qualified official immunity. Qualified official immunity precludes a suit for money damages against government officials arising out of actions occurring in performance of their official duties. The immunity does not extend to conduct that is contrary to clearly established law with which an official would be familiar. Agent Mesa argued that no Fourth or Fifth Amendment precedent clearly covered conduct in a foreign nation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-02-26
-
Accomplices, Aiding and Abetting, and the Like: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. § 2 [Updated February 14, 2020]
From the Introduction: "Virtually every federal criminal statute has a hidden feature; helpers and hands-on offenders face the same punishment. This is the work of 18 U.S.C. § 2, which treats hands-on offenders and their accomplices (aiders and abettors) alike. This accomplice liability is much like that which accompanies conspiracy, and the rationale is the same for both: society fears the crimes of several more than the crimes of one. Aiding and abetting, unlike conspiracy, is not a separate crime; instead it serves as an alternative means of incurring criminal liability for the underlying offense."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-02-14
-
Accomplices, Aiding and Abetting, and the Like: An Abbreviated Overview of 18 U.S.C. § 2 [Updated February 14, 2020]
From the Introduction: "Virtually every federal criminal statute has a hidden feature; helpers and hands-on offenders face the same punishment. This is the work of 18 U.S.C. § 2, which treats hands-on offenders and their accomplices (aiders and abettors) alike. This accomplice liability is much like that which accompanies conspiracy, and the rationale is the same for both: society fears the crimes of several more than the crimes of one. Aiding and abetting, unlike conspiracy, is not a separate crime; instead it serves as an alternative means of incurring criminal liability for the underlying offense."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-02-14
-
Court Tosses Convictions for Killing ICE Agent Abroad [February 10, 2020]
From the Document: "In 'United States v. Garcia Sota,' two defendants were each convicted on four counts under three different statutes--18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 1114, and 1116--for attacking a pair of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Mexico, killing one and wounding the other. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated the defendants' convictions under Section 1114, which outlaws killing federal officers while performing their duties, on the ground that the statute does not apply outside of the United States. The D.C. Circuit's decision creates a conflict with decisions of two other federal appellate courts that the full D.C. Circuit, the Supreme Court, or Congress may be asked to resolve."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-02-10
-
Trying to Kill an FBI Agent: Sentence Too Low [January 16, 2020]
From the Document: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) on December 27, 2019, rejected as 'shockingly low' a seventeen-year prison term imposed on a terrorist who attempted to kill an FBI agent. The defendant in United States v. Mumuni faced an eighty-five-year term under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. One member of the three-judge panel dissented in part because he did not believe that the sentence was so 'shockingly low' as to require resentencing."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-01-16
-
Restitution in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch [Updated October 15, 2019]
From the Introduction: "Federal courts may not order a defendant to pay restitution to the victims of his or her crimes unless empowered to do so by statute. Two general statutes vest the courts with authority to order restitution. One, 18 U.S.C. § 3663, permits it for certain crimes. The second, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, requires it for other crimes. In addition, several individual restitution statutes authorize awards for particular offenses, i.e.: (1) animal enterprise terrorism; (2) failure to provide child support; (3) human trafficking; (4) sexual abuse; (5) sexual exploitation of children; (6) stalking or domestic violence; (7) copyright infringement; (8) telemarketing fraud; (9) amphetamine or methamphetamine offenses; (10) reckless disregard of sex trafficking; and (11) transportation or travel for unlawful sexual purposes. Federal courts also may order restitution pursuant to a plea bargain or as a condition of probation or supervised release, even where it is not otherwise authorized. Section 3664 supplies the procedure under which the restitution order is ordinarily imposed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-10-15
-
Restitution in Federal Criminal Cases [Updated October 15, 2019]
From the Summary: "Restitution in federal criminal cases is a matter of statute. A handful of statutes identify the victims who are eligible to receive restitution; what criminal convictions may trigger an obligation to pay restitution; the losses for which victims may be compensated; and the procedure by which restitution is ordered and enforced. [...] The Department of Justice, acting on behalf of a victim, may enforce a restitution order in the manner it uses to collect fines or by 'all other available and reasonable means.' Victims may secure a lien in their own names against the defendant's property in order to secure restitution, and they may bring other civil actions in their own names against the defendant. The courts do not agree on whether the abatement doctrine cuts off unfulfilled obligations under a restitution order. The abatement doctrine provides that when a defendant dies while his or her appeal is still pending the law treats the defendant's indictment and conviction as though they had never happened. The conviction is vacated and the indictment dismissed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-10-15
