United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (Judge Hull)
United States v. Hall, 269 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2001) (Judge Loken)

Both of these cases explored whether money damages are available as a remedy under Rule 41(e) of the Fed.R.CrimP. [Motion for the Return of Property] ...

Here the Court held that when the Government seizes property, but never institutes formal forfeiture proceedings, the statute of limitations does not begin to run for Rule 41(e) motions until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the claimant.

In 1994, the four appellants in this case were convicted of ...

Here the Court held that a technical violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 30, which requires that jury instructions be finalized before closing arguments, did not violate the defendant's substantial rights or affect the fairness and integrity of the trial.

In this case the defendants appealed their drug convictions arguing, inter alia, that ...

Here, a divided panel affirmed the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the state court had committed error when it permitted the use of a videotaped deposition of a witness without showing the witness's unavailability.

In this case, the Court acknowledged that the Supreme Court ...

As most Apprendi-watchers know, on August 9, 2001, a divided panel from the Ninth Circuit issued a highly controversial ruling to the effect that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B), two of the main provisions of the most commonly used Federal drug statute, are facially unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New ...

The defendant in this case pled guilty to a single count of a multi-count indictment, admitting that he had participated in a conspiracy to distribute an unspecified amount of cocaine base. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Although his counsel filed an Anders brief, suggesting that there were ...

In this case the defendant was convicted of importing 63 pounds of marijuana into the United States, after customs officials found the drugs secreted in the gas tank of the car he was driving. The principal issue raised on appeal was the district court’s admission of testimony from the border ...

After the defendant in this case signed a standard appeal waiver provision as part of his plea agreement, he asked the Court, on aooeal, to declare that waiver-of-appeals provisions are void as contrary to public policy, because defendants cannot ever knowingly and voluntarily waive their rights to appeal future errors. ...

This is another one of the 49 decisions vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court “for further consideration in light of its decision in Apprendi”. Three defendants were convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Two of the defendants were sentenced, ...

Although the Court quickly rejected the defendant's contention, this is the first case we have seen in which a defendant challenged a waiver of appeal provision in a plea agreement as void because it constitutes a contract of adhesion.

It is hard to pinpoint precisely when appeal waiver provisions first ...

Here the Court held that sovereign immunity protects the Government from claims for money damages under Rule 41(e) when it destroys, rather than returns to the claimant, property that that has been unlawfully seized or retained by the Govermment.

United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) ...

Here the Court rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to both the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (18 USC § 228(a)(1)) and the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 (18 USC § 228(a)(3)); and reaffirmed its decision in U.S. v. Bongiorno.

Here, reaffirming its prior decision in U.S. v. Bongiorno, ...