ALERT 2020 — Bi-Weekly Newsletter (December 15–26, 2025)

Abouammo v. United States (Venue / Limitations)

Venue: Can the government prosecute in a district where no conduct occurred just because “effects” could be felt there?

Statute of limitations: Does a felony information without a valid indictment waiver still allow an extension under 18 U.S.C. § 3288?

Why it matters: Venue fights can be powerful—especially when the government “picks” a forum that helps them.

A. 2d Cir.: Illegal Reentry Case Tossed — Bad Removal Order Stayed Bad

United States v. Ramirez Rodriguez, Nos. 24-2059(L), 24-2093 (Dec. 16, 2025)

The government repeatedly “reinstated” a 2000 removal order based on a New York drug conviction. But under Minter (2d Cir. 2023), that conviction did not make him removable, meaning the original removal order was invalid.

The district court said later reinstatements/convictions cured prejudice. The Second Circuit disagreed: reinstatements aren’t new removal orders and can’t fix an invalid predicate. Conviction vacated; remanded.

Use it if: Your § 1326 case rests on a removal order tied to a conviction that may not actually trigger removability.

B. 5th Cir.: “Fake Math” Drug Quantities — Summary Chart Can’t Replace Proof

United States v. McGuire (consol.), Nos. 24-40109 & 24-40111 (Dec. 22, 2025)

On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit criticized the government’s reliance on a Rule 1006 “summary” spreadsheet using unexplained averaging/extrapolation to attribute marijuana quantities. The court warned against hypothetical quantities masquerading as evidence and remanded for resentencing for certain defendants under the lower default marijuana penalty provision § 841(b)(1)(D). The court also discussed money laundering theories (Cuellar vs. promotional).

Use it if: Your drug weight was proved by estimates, charts, extrapolation, or “average” math.

C. 6th Cir.: Huge Restitution Win — “Actual Loss” Means Actual Loss

United States v. Clay, Nos. 23-3923 / 24-3038 (Dec. 19, 2025)

Health-care fraud case with nearly $7 million restitution. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded, emphasizing: restitution must reflect actual loss, not a windfall; medically necessary prescriptions can’t be swept in; apportionment must be justified by statute (not “because the co-defendant’s plea says so”); IRS restitution needs evidence, not a bare number; and restitution can’t be expanded beyond the charged scheme. Leadership enhancement issues were also sent back for clarification.

Use it if: Restitution includes unsupported numbers, IRS add-ons, or inflated loss calculations.

D. 6th Cir.: § 851 Enhancement Blown Up — Predicate Didn’t Qualify

United States v. Reed, Nos. 24-5135/5526 (Dec. 23, 2025)

Reed’s 25-year minimum was triggered when the district court treated Kentucky burglary as a qualifying “serious violent felony.” The Sixth Circuit said no: it didn’t fit the statute’s clauses and the residual clause can’t save it after Johnson/Dimaya/Davis. Sentence vacated; remanded.

Use it if: § 851 added years based on a prior conviction that might not qualify under today’s categorical-approach rules.

E. 7th Cir.: Bank Fraud Counts Reversed — “A Check Isn’t a Lie”

United States v. Robinson, Nos. 24-1910 & 24-2310 (Dec. 15, 2025)

Housing Authority kickback scheme. The Seventh Circuit reversed bank-fraud convictions under § 1344(2) because the government failed to identify a bank-directed false statement— and “a check is not a factual assertion.” A clerical restitution issue was remanded for correction.

Use it if: You were stacked with bank fraud just because checks were used, without a clear bank-directed misrepresentation.

F. 10th Cir.: DUI Manslaughter Reversed — Judge Failed to Answer Jury’s Legal Question

United States v. Kirby, No. 24-7070 (Dec. 16, 2025)

Jury asked whether “under the influence” meant any intoxicants in the body or being incapable of safely driving. Oklahoma law requires the latter. The judge told jurors to reread the instructions instead of clarifying.

The Tenth Circuit held: failure to answer the jury’s clear legal question was reversible error. Conviction vacated; remanded.

Use it if: The jury expressed confusion and the court didn’t clarify the legal standard.

G. 11th Cir.: § 924(c) Count Vacated — Prosecutor Used Evidence Not Admitted

United States v. Jones, No. 24-10938 (Dec. 19, 2025)

Jones received a 45-year sentence on drug and gun counts. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the § 924(c) count and ordered a new trial because the prosecutor urged conviction using an unadmitted exhibit in closing. Other counts were affirmed.

Use it if: Closing argument referenced “evidence” that wasn’t admitted or the jury never saw.