KEY CASES - VICTORIES

FEDERAL APPEALS - CRIMINAL

​

United States v. Iraheta, 764 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that search of client's vehicle was unconstitutional and drugs seized from unlawful search were properly suppressed because law enforcement officers did not act reasonably in securing consent to search)

United States v. Blevins, 755 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that client's case must be remanded to the district court for evidentiary hearing on Bill of Information requirements)

United States v. Daniels, 723 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2013), reh’g granted and remanded, 729 F.3d 496 (5th Cir.), cert. denied (2014) (holding that the district court erred in finding that client and co-defendants conspired to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine powder; Convictions and sentences vacated, and case remanded for remanded for resentencing based on lower quantity)

United States v. Brown, United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-30235 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (holding
that law enforcement officers did not act in good faith in executing a search warrant of client’s home, and judge who issued search warranted did not have sufficient facts for the issuance of a valid search warrant; All evidence seized from client's home was suppressed; Case against client was dismissed and he was released from federal prison)

​FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CASES - CRIMINAL

​

United States v. Dove, No. 20-135 (E.D.La. 2020) (Client was indicted on one count of Use of an Interstate Facility with Intent to Carry on Unlawful Activity (18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A)) (Bribery) and one count of Tampering with a Witness (18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1)); Client faced a sentencing guideline range of 84-105 months of imprisonment; Mr. Shapiro prepared and filed a Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance on behalf of client seeking a downward variance in sentence; The Court granted the motion, and client was sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment rather than 84-105 months of imprisonment) 

United States v. Jones, No. 98-207 (E.D.La. 2021) (holding that, on a motion prepared and filed by Mr. Shapiro on behalf of client under the First Step Act of 2018, the client's sentence of life in prison plus 5 years for conspiracy/drug trafficking conviction was reduced to 220 months; The Court re-sentenced client to time-served after spending 23 years in prison)

​

United States v. Henderson, 660 F. Supp. 2d 751 (E.D. La. 2009) (holding that, based on a Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance Mr. Shapiro prepared, filed, and argued on behalf of client, the Court held that a downward variance in client's sentence was warranted due to its rejection of 100:1 punishment ratio for crack cocaine vs. cocaine powder and adopting a 1:1 sentencing ratio. This case set a precedent in the United States 

Dstrict Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  However, Congress subsequently enacted the Federal Sentencing Act of 2010, which, by statute, established the punishment ratio to be 18:1)

United States v. Holden, USDC - Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 09-261 (Client indicted on drug trafficking offenses; Client pled guilty; Client faced "Career Offender" sentencing guideline range of 262 to 327 months of imprisonment and a mandatory minimum of 10 years; The client faced the Career Offender sentencing guidelines because he had previously convicted of very small street quantities of crack cocaine (and in one instance, the substance was a counterfeit drug - which counted as a real drug under controlling precedent).  As a result of a Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance prepared, filed, and argued by Mr. Shapiro on behalf of client, the Court sentenced client to 200 months of imprisonment, rather than 262 to 327 months in prison)

United States v. Clark, 2008 WL 1743347 (W.D. La. 2008) (unpublished) (holding that, on a Motion in Limine filed on behalf of client, evidence of client's prior conviction would be inadmissible at trial)

United States v. Colomb, 448 F.Supp.2d 750 (W.D. La. 2006) (holding that client and co-defendants' due process rights, including the right to a fair trial, were violated when the Court admittedly erred in failing to declare a mistrial following discovery of letter from a federal inmate selling false information about client and co-defendants to government inmate witnesses long before the cooperating government witnesses testified at trial.  The convictions of all defendants were vacated.  This case became known as the "Jailhouse Pipeline" case and, as ordered by the Court, the government was required to conduct a full investigation of inmates involved in this activity at the Federal Bureau of Prisons)

FEDERAL CIVIL DISTRICT COURT CASES AND APPEALS

Costanza v. Jefferson Parish, 2017 WL 2731061 (E.D. La. 2017) (Client opposed defendant's Motion to Stay federal case pending resolution of State administrative proceeding where client was complainant in an employment matter; The Court held that "staying" of the federal case was not warranted under abstention doctrine set forth in the Colorado River case)

Kurian David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al., No. 08-1220 (E.D.La. 2015)
Nature of case: Human Trafficking (Labor), Civil RICO, Civil Rights Violations
Proceedings:  Represented one of several defendants from inception of case through a 5-week jury trial and post-trial motions
Disposition: Client and all defendants defeated plaintiffs’ request for class certification; At trial, lead defendant Signal International was cast in judgment for $12.5M; The jury imposed judgment in favor of plaintiffs against client’s corporation (which was insolvent at that time), but not client, individually;  Client and co-defendant defeated all of Signal International's cross claims against clients.

Kurian David, et al. v. World Marine, et al., No. 15-30464 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding cross claims of Signal International (later "World Marine") against client and another co-defendant, as well as Signal International's claims for indemnity,
were properly dismissed by the district court)

Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Courtney, 2006 WL 1968926 (E.D. La. 2006) (unpublished) (holding that a stay of
discovery for one year in civil lawsuit against client under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, was appropriate to protect client's Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination where client was a target of a grand jury investigation)

STATE COURT - APPEALS

​

Baldini v. East Jefferson General Hosp., No. 07-489 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/22/08), 976 So.2d 746 (2008) (affirming Exception of Prescription granted by the district court and dismissing plaintiff's case)

Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 646 So. 2d 318 (La. 1994) (holding that the stealth manner in which police
officers approached suspect while attempting to disarm him was not negligent, and thus client City of New Orleans, clients' employer, was not liable in respondeat superior)