CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
YUN ZHENG aka Wendy Zheng; YAN QIU WU aka
Jason Wu,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 22-5516 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.
No. 2:21-cr-00051—David L. Bunning, District Judge.
Argued: October 18, 2023
Decided and Filed: November 28, 2023
Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
MATHIS, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Yun Zheng and Yan Qiu Wu on four counts
of harboring illegal noncitizens for commercial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)
and (a)(1)(A)(v)(II).1 Zheng and Wu now appeal, challenging the district court’s jury
instructions. Specifically, they argue that the district court: (1) erred in instructing the jury on
the meaning of “harboring” by not including a requirement that Zheng and Wu had acted
intentionally and knowingly in shielding the illegal noncitizens from law enforcement; and
(2) invaded the province of the jury by giving examples of “harboring” in the jury instructions.
Finding no error, we affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLARENCE GOODWIN,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 22-5845 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
No. 1:08-cr-00104-1—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 28, 2023
Before: WHITE, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. In 2009, Clarence Goodwin received a 262-month sentence—
one at the bottom of his guidelines range—for conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. The First
Step Act of 2018 allowed defendants like Goodwin to seek a lower sentence based on changes to
the sentencing laws that occurred after their offense. But the district court denied Goodwin’s
motion for a reduced sentence primarily because his guidelines range remained the same even
after considering these retroactive statutory changes. Goodwin now argues that the district court
committed a procedural error by denying relief in a cursory order. He also argues that it
committed a substantive error because his rehabilitation efforts (when combined with other legal
changes) required the court to issue a below-guidelines sentence. Disagreeing on both fronts, we
affirm. |
|