US v. Williams — criminal — affirmance — Roth
Things rarely seen: a panel opinion in which all three judges filed separate concurring opinions. It happened today in case where the Third Circuit rejected a defendant’s challenges to the denial of his suppression motion based on withdrawal of consent and his classification as a career offender.
Judge Hardiman concurred in part and concurred in the judgment to argue that the modified categorical approach need not be applied in cases involving RICO predicate offenses. Judge Roth concurred (“I agree with the reasoning and the conclusions of the majority opinion, which I in fact wrote”) to argue that, while the modified categorical approach may be required in RICO-predicate cases, it shouldn’t be. And Judge Fisher concurred, arguing that the defendant validly withdrew consent to the search but that it was supported by probable cause.
Arguing counsel were Kimberly Brunson for the federal defender and Donovan Cocas for the government.
Wang v. AG — immigration — reversal — Nygaard
The Third Circuit today held that a Chinese citizen’s conviction for violating the Commodities Exchange Act did not qualify as a deportable aggravated felony.
Joining Nygaard were Chagares and Jordan. Arguing counsel were Thomas Moseley of Newark for the petitioner and Keith McManus for the government.