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).
-
Obstruction of Justice As a Sidecar [October 8, 2019]
From the Introduction: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) recently vacated the sentence of an Air Force veteran convicted of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and of obstruction of justice. The Second Circuit concluded that the district court judge had not sufficiently explained his sentencing rationale and sent the case back for resentencing. A concurring member of the panel expressed concern over the expanded use of obstruction of justice charges."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-10-08
-
Crimes of Violence Committed Against Federal Officials or Employees: A Brief Overview of Federal Criminal Law [May 31, 2011]
From the Introduction: "Recent tragic events in Tucson, AZ, have raised questions about the extent to which federal law outlaws crimes of violence committed against federal officials or federal employees. More than a few outlaw such conduct. Murder or assault committed anywhere in the United States is outlawed in the law of the state in which it occurs. Notwithstanding any state prosecution, however, a number of federal laws outlaw crimes of violence committed under various federal jurisdictional circumstances, including but not limited to the fact that crime is committed against a Member of Congress, a federal judge, the President, or a federal employee. The more prominent of these, with particular attention to the events in Tucson, are mentioned briefly below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-05-31
-
Murder or Attempted Murder of a Member of Congress and Other Federal Officials and Employees: Implications in Federal Criminal Law and Procedure of Events in Tucson [May 31, 2011]
"Jared Lee Loughner was arrested for the attempted murder of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the murder of United States District Court Judge John Roll, and the murder or attempted murder of several federal employees. The arrest brings several features of federal law to the fore. Federal crimes of violence are usually violations of the law of the state where they occur; an offender may be tried in either federal or state court or both. Ordinarily, federal crimes must be tried where they occur, but in extraordinary cases a defendant's motion for a change of venue may be granted. In capital cases, the decision to seek the death penalty rests with the Attorney General. Should a defendant elect to assert an insanity defense, he must provide pretrial notification. In the face of that notice, the court may order an examination to determine the defendant's competence to stand trial. Federal law affords victims, including families of the deceased or incapacitated, the right to confer with prosecutors, and to attend the trial and other public judicial proceedings. Defendants, convicted of a murder for which the prosecution seeks the death penalty, are entitled to a jury determination of whether they acted with the intent necessary to qualify for the death penalty and whether the balance of aggravating and any mitigating factors are sufficient to warrant the jury's recommendation that the defendant be put to death. Defendants, convicted of attempted murder or some other noncapital offense, are sentenced by the court without the benefit of a jury. Sentencing in such cases begins with the federal Sentencing Guidelines, from whose recommendations a sentencing court may depart only with reasonable justification. Comparable provisions of state law are beyond the scope of this report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-05-31
-
Robbery, Extortion, and Bribery in One Place: A Legal Overview of the Hobbs Act [November 6, 2018]
"The Hobbs Act proscribes obstructing commerce by means of robbery or extortion or attempting or conspiring to do so. The Act applies to individuals and legal entities alike. It permits prosecutions, although the impact on commerce may be minimal. It condemns the robbery -- knowingly taking the property of another by force or threat -- of drug dealers, mom-and-pop markets, and multinational corporations. Attempted Hobbs Act robbery consists of an intent to rob, coupled with a substantial step toward that objective; conspiracy, a scheme of two or more to rob or extort; and accomplice liability, aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act violation of another. Hobbs Act robbery, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years, often occurs in confluence with the use of a firearm during and in furtherance of its commission, a fact that triggers the mandatory minimum sentences authorized in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The facts present in a Hobbs Act robbery case may also implicate violations of (1) the federal racketeering statute punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years and (2) the federal money laundering statutes, likewise punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-11-06
-
Only Minimal Impact on Commerce Needed for Attempted Bombing [July 26, 2018]
"The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh Circuit) recently held in United States v. Suarez that a minimal impact on commerce is sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of the federal weapons of mass destruction statute. The decision seems to reflect a growing willingness of federal appellate courts to read broadly Congress's Commerce Clause powers."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-07-26
-
Hostage-Taking Statute Covers Kidnapping for Ransom Abroad [July 30, 2018]
"In the midst of a rash of kidnappings, a U.S. citizen living in Haiti was seized and held for ransom. In United States v. Noel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh Circuit) recently upheld the conviction of one of the kidnappers under the federal hostage-taking statute. The statute condemns 'whoever, whether inside or outside the United States . . . detains . . . another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained . . .' It applies outside the U.S. if either the offender or the victim is a U.S. citizen; the offender later travels, or is brought, to the U.S.; or the targeted 'governmental organization' is the U.S. Government."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-07-30
-
Fibbing to Get a Lawyer: Circuits Split on Punishment [November 27, 2017]
"The lower federal appellate courts do not agree on whether a defendant's sentence may be increased because he lied in order to become eligible for a court-appointed attorney. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) in 'United States v. Iverson' recently joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits when it upheld a sentencing enhancement recommended in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Second Circuit has taken a different view. [...] The Supreme Court not infrequently agrees to hear cases in order to resolve splits in the circuits. Moreover, Congress may take steps to clarify uncertainty in the law in the face of disagreement among the lower federal courts. In this case, however, it seems more likely that the U.S. Sentencing Commission may resolve the dispute as part of its annual cycle of sentencing guideline amendments that become effective in the absence of congressional action."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2017-11-27
-
Killing Endangered Species: What's Reasonable Self-Defense? [November 29, 2017]
From the Document: "In 'United States v. Wallen', the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) recently held that a defendant charged with killing a grizzly bear cub in violation the Endangered Species Act enjoys a complete defense if he 'actually, even if unreasonably, believe[s] his actions were necessary to protect himself or others.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2017-11-29
-
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing of Federal Drug Offenses [January 11, 2018]
From the Document: "This is a brief discussion of the law associated with the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of federal controlled substance (drug) laws and drug-related federal firearms and recidivist statutes. These mandatory minimums, however, are not as mandatory as they might appear. The government may elect not to prosecute the underlying offenses. Federal courts may disregard otherwise applicable mandatory sentencing requirements at the behest of the government. The federal courts may also bypass some of them for the benefit of certain low-level, nonviolent offenders with virtually spotless criminal records under the so-called 'safety valve' provision. Finally, in cases where the mandatory minimums would usually apply, the President may pardon offenders or commute their sentences before the minimum term of imprisonment has been served. Be that as it may, sentencing in drug cases, particularly mandatory minimum drug sentencing, has contributed to an explosion in the federal prison population and attendant costs."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-01-11
-
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing of Federal Drug Offenses in Short [January 11, 2018]
From the Document: "This is a brief discussion of the law associated with the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of federal controlled substance (drug) laws and drug-related federal firearms and recidivist statutes. These mandatory minimums, however, are not as mandatory as they might appear. The government may elect not to prosecute the underlying offenses. Federal courts may disregard otherwise applicable mandatory sentencing requirements at the behest of the government. The federal courts may also bypass some of them for the benefit of certain low-level, nonviolent, offenders with virtually spotless criminal records under the so-called 'safety valve' provision. Finally, in cases where the mandatory minimums would usually apply, the President may pardon the offenders or commute their sentences before the minimum term of imprisonment has been served."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-01-11
-
Russians Indicted for Online Election Trolling [February 21, 2018]
"The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the grand jury indictment of three Russian companies and thirteen Russian nationals on February 16, 2018. The indictment alleges that the defendants took part in a multi-layered, multi-million dollar scheme to surreptitiously participate in the most recent presidential election. The defendants are charged with aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud and with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government. The indictment asserts that the purpose of the enterprise was to obstruct 'the lawful governmental functions of the United States by dishonest means in order to enable the Defendants to interfere with U.S. political and electoral processes, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-02-21
-
Victim Restitution: Attorneys' Fees for Internal Investigations? [February 6, 2018]
"Does a statute that requires victim reimbursement for 'other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the [victimizing] offense' cover 'costs that were neither required nor requested by the government, including costs incurred for the victim's own purposes and unprompted by any official action?' That is the question that has bedeviled the lower federal courts and that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider in a case styled Lagos v. United States."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-02-06
-
Venue: A Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried [December 6, 2018]
"The United States Constitution assures those charged with a serious federal crime that they will be prosecuted in the state and district in which the crime occurred. A crime occurs in any district in which any of its 'conduct' elements are committed. Some offenses are committed entirely within a single district; there they may be tried. Other crimes have elements that have occurred in more than one district. Still other crimes have been committed overseas and so have occurred outside any district. Statutory provisions, court rules, and judicial interpretations implement the Constitution's requirements and dictate where multi-district crimes or overseas crimes may be tried."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-12-06
-
Venue: An Abridged Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried [December 6, 2018]
"The United States Constitution assures those charged with a serious federal crime that they will be prosecuted in the state and district in which the crime occurred. A crime occurs in any district in which any of its 'conduct' elements are committed. Some offenses are committed entirely within a single district; there they may be tried. Other crimes have elements that have occurred in more than one district. Still other crimes have been committed overseas and so have occurred outside any district. Statutory provisions, court rules, and judicial interpretations implement the Constitution's requirements and dictate where multi-district crimes or overseas crimes may be tried. Most litigation involves either a question of whether the government's selection of venue in a multi-district case is proper or whether the court should grant the accused's request for a change of venue. The government bears the burden of establishing venue by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant may waive trial in a proper venue either explicitly or by failing to object to prosecution in an improper venue in a timely manner."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-12-06
-
VAWA Reauthorization: Substantive Criminal Law Proposals [March 20, 2019]
From the Document: "The authorization of appropriations for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) expired at the end of FY 2018. The House Judiciary Committee has voted out an amendment in the nature of a substitute of the reauthorization of the bill (H.R. 1585). The absence of an authorization is no legal impediment to an appropriation, but the absence of an authorization can present parliamentary obstacles during floor consideration of an appropriation. VAWA and its periodic reauthorization amendments consist of grant programs and substantive criminal law provisions. VAWA's grant programs are covered in detail elsewhere. This legal sidebar discusses some of the substantive criminal law issues raised during current reauthorization efforts."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-03-20
-
Mail and Wire Fraud: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law [Updated February 11, 2019]
"The mail and wire fraud statutes are exceptionally broad. Their scope has occasionally given the courts pause. Nevertheless, prosecutions in their name have brought to an end schemes that have bilked victims out of millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars. The statutes proscribe (1) causing the use of the mail or wire communications, including email; (2) in conjunction with a scheme to intentionally defraud another of money or property; (3) by means of a material deception. The offenses, along with attempts or conspiracies to commit them, carry a term of imprisonment of up to 30 years in some cases, followed by a term of supervised release. Offenders also face the prospect of fines, orders to make restitution, and forfeiture of their property."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-02-11
-
Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions [Updated February 22, 2019]
"Federal law requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses. Congress has created three exceptions. Two are available in any case where the prosecutor asserts that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another. The other, commonly referred to as the safety valve, is available, without the government's approval, for a handful of the more commonly prosecuted drug trafficking and unlawful possession offenses that carry minimum sentences."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-02-22
-
Receipt of $4.7 Billion is Not Always a Benefit [February 12, 2019]
"According to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (First Circuit) in 'United States v. Bravo-Fernández', evidence that Puerto Rico received $4.7 billion in federal 'assistance' is not enough to prove that the Commonwealth received at least $10,000 in federal 'program benefits' under the federal program bribery statute. At the time of the First Circuit's most recent opinion, the case was making a third trip up the appellate ladder. The case began when Juan Bravo-Fernández (Bravo), a businessman, provided Hector Martinez-Maldonado (Martinez), a member of the Puerto Rican Senate, with a trip to Las Vegas complete with first-class hotel accommodations, expensive meals, and highly priced tickets to a boxing match. A trial jury convicted the pair of violating the federal program bribery statute."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-02-12
-
Extradition of U.S. Citizens [June 13, 2019]
From the Introduction: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) recently refused to bar the extradition to the Czech Republic of a U.S. citizen, Ivo Knotek, who challenged his extradition on constitutional grounds. The federal international extradition process has several unusual aspects, but the Ninth Circuit case is somewhat unique even among extradition cases. In addition to other uncommon features, it explores the circumstances under which the United States will extradite one of its own citizens."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-06-13
-
Gun Crime Penalty Tossed [June 20, 2019]
From the Summary: "The full United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) (sitting en banc), in 'United States v. Havis,' recently held that prior attempt convictions do not warrant a felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm sentencing enhancement. Ordinarily binding commentary included in the U.S. Sentencing Commission's sentencing guidelines would require enhancement for prior attempt convictions. A number of other federal appellate courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 2017, have deferred to the Sentencing Commission's interpretation. The Sixth Circuit, however, concluded that the commentary is not entitled to deference because it conflicts with the text of the guideline."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
-
National Security Letters: Proposals in the 112th Congress [June 30, 2011]
"National Security Letters (NSLs) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Various intelligence agencies use them to demand certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded NSL authority. Later reports of the Department of Justice's Inspector General indicated that (1) the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] considered the expanded authority very useful; (2) after expansion the number of NSL requests increased dramatically; (3) the number of requests relating to Americans increased substantially; and (4) FBI use of NSL authority had sometimes failed to comply with statutory, Attorney General, or FBI policies. […] This report reprints the text of the five NSL statutes as they now appear and as they appeared prior to amendment by the USA PATRIOT Act (to which form they would be returned under S. 1125 and H.R. 1805). Related reports include CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R40138, Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015, by Edward C. Liu, and CRS Report RL33320, National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background and Recent Amendments, by Charles Doyle."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-06-30
-
National Security Letters: Proposed Amendments in the 111th Congress [December 27, 2010]
"Five federal statutes authorize various intelligence agencies to demand, through National Security Letters (NSLs), certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies, under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded NSL authority. Later reports of the Department of Justice Inspector General indicated that (1) the FBI considered the expanded authority very useful; (2) after expansion the number of NSLs requests increased dramatically; (3) the number of requests relating to Americans increased substantially; and (4) FBI use of NSL authority had sometimes failed to comply with statutory, Attorney General, or FBI policies. Originally, the NSL statutes authorized nondisclosure requirements prohibiting recipients from disclosing receipt or the content of the NSL to anyone, ever. They now permit judicial review of these secrecy provisions. As understood by the courts, recipients may request the issuing agency to seek and justify to the court the continued binding effect of any secrecy requirement."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-12-27
-
National Security Letters: Proposals in the 112th Congress [February 1, 2011]
"Three USA PATRIOT Act-related amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) expire on February 28, 2011. None of the expiring provisions deal with National Security Letters (NSLs). The USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 (S. 193), however, would both extend the expiration of those provisions and amend existing NSL authority. S. 193 corresponds in large measure to legislation reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the last Congress (S. 1692 (111th Cong.)). NSLs are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Various intelligence agencies use them to demand certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. [...] S. 193 would return NSL statutes, as of December 31, 2013, to their pre-USA PATRIOT Act status. It would also codify existing law with respect to judicial review of NSL nondisclosure orders and expand existing audit and reporting requirements. This report reprints the text of the five NSL statutes as they now appear and as they appeared prior to amendment by the USA PATRIOT Act (to which form they would be returned under S. 193)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-02-01
-
National Security Letters: Proposals in the 113th Congress [January 22, 2015]
"A National Security Letter (NSL) is roughly comparable to an administrative subpoena. Various intelligence agencies use NSLs to demand certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Congress weighed several NSL amendments during the 113th Congress. The House passed one, H.R. 3361. The Senate failed to provide the three-fifths vote necessary for cloture on another, S. 2685. Yet in the end, the 113th Congress adjourned without enacting any of the proposed NSL amendments. […] As an additional oversight tool, S. 1215 and S. 1599 would have returned all but two of the NSL statutes to their pre-USA PATRIOT Act [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001] form, effective June 1, 2015. The exceptions would have been the National Security Act NSL statute, which evokes few privacy concerns, and the sweeping, USA PATRIOT Act-born, Fair Credit Reporting Act NSL statute, which the bills would have repealed. This report reprints the text of the five NSL statutes as they now appear and as they appeared prior to amendment by the USA PATRIOT Act (to which form they would have been returned under S. 1125 and H.R. 1805). Related reports include CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R40138, Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015, by Edward C. Liu, and CRS Report RL33320, National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background, by Charles Doyle."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-01-22
-
National Security Letters: Proposal in the 113th Congress [November 22, 2013]
"National Security Letters (NSLs) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. They need no prior judicial approval. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information. The 111th and 112th Congresses saw a number of proposals to amend NSL authority. None were enacted. In the 112th Congress, they were closely associated with the scheduled expiration of various provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In the 113th Congress, they have often been grouped with legislation that addresses the exercise of FISA authority."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2013-11-22
-
National Security Letters: Proposed Amendments in the 111th Congress [December 21, 2009]
"Five federal statutes authorize various intelligence agencies to demand, through National Security Letters (NSLs), certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies, under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The USA PATRIOT [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism] Act expanded NSL authority. Later reports of the Department of Justice Inspector General indicated that (1) the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] considered the expanded authority very useful; (2) after expansion the number of NSLs requests increased dramatically; (3) the number of requests relating to Americans increased substantially; and (4) FBI use of NSL authority had sometimes failed to comply with statutory, Attorney General, or FBI policies."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2009-12-21
-
National Security Letters: Proposed Amendments in the 111th Congress [October 28, 2009]
"Five federal statutes authorize various intelligence agencies to demand, through National Security Letters (NSLs), certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies, under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded NSL authority. Later reports of the Department of Justice Inspector General indicated that (1) the FBI considered the expanded authority very useful; (2) after expansion the number of NSLs requests increased dramatically; (3) the number of requests relating to Americans increased substantially; and (4) FBI use of NSL authority had sometimes failed to comply with statutory, Attorney General, or FBI policies. […] Several USA PATRIOT Act provisions are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2009. The NSL statutory provisions are not among them. Nevertheless, several bills have been introduced which would amend and in some cases repeal NSL authority. […] In addition to sunset and repeal, the bills raise issues involving amendment of nondisclosure requirements; the promulgation of standards to minimize capturing, using, and holding (long term) NSL generated information, continued periodic IG audits and reports, and limitations on statutory provisions thought by some to permit circumvention of NSL statutory requirements. This report includes a chart comparing the provisions of the bills and current law. It also reprints the text of the five NSL statutes as they now appear and as they appeared prior to amendment by the USA PATRIOT Act (to which form they would return under some of the bills)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2009-10-28
-
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
-
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
