EXPERIENCE

 

Stephen H. Shapiro, Attorney at Law, LLC     New Orleans, LA

Practice Areas: General practice in federal and state court,

including criminal defense, civil litigation, and appeals

2008-Present

 

Sharp Dooley, LLC     Baton Rouge, LA

Practice Areas: Criminal defense and civil litigation in federal

and state court, including personal injury, commercial law,

municipal law, public utility law, and appeals

2006-2008

 

Sharp Hymel Cerniglia Colvin Weaver & Davis, LLC   Baton Rouge, LA

Practice Areas: Criminal defense and civil litigation in federal

and state court, including personal injury, commercial law,

civil rights law, and appeals

2001-2006

 

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

 

Judicial Law Clerk for Honorable F.A. “Pappy” Little, Jr.

United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana-Alexandria Division

(1989-1990)

 

Judicial Law Clerk for Honorable Robert G. James

United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana-Monroe Division

(1998-2000)

 

Judicial Law Clerk for Honorable Christine Noland

United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(2000-2001)

 

City of New Orleans

City Attorney’s Office

Police Litigation Department

(1993-1994)

 

HONORS

2007 Criminal Justice Act Award – In recognition of Excellence in Criminal Defense Advocacy in connection with United States v. Colomb, et al. – Given by Federal Public Defender for the Middle

and Western Districts of Louisiana

 

ADMISSIONS

Louisiana State Bar Association; U.S. District Court-Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of

Louisiana; United States District Court-Eastern District of Texas; United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

 

PERSONAL INTERESTS

Tennis; Piano; Labrador Retrievers; Solar Energy; Windsurfing; Canoeing; Actor in Community

Theatre

FEDERAL APPEALS CRIMINAL

United States v. Iraheta, 764 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that search of defendant's/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/defendant'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/defendant 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 (unpublished) (holding
that law enforcement officers did not act in good faith in executing a search warrant of client/defendant’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. Henderson, 660 F. Supp. 2d 751 (E.D. La. 2009) (holding that, on motion filed on behalf of
client, Court held that a downward variance in client/defendant'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 (pre-Federal Sentencing Act 2010 ratio of 18:1)

United States v. Jermaine Holden, USDC - Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 09-261
Offenses: Drug Trafficking
Proceedings: Indictment, District Court
Disposition: Client pleaded guilty; Client faced career offender sentencing guideline range of 262 to 327
months of imprisonment; As a result of a motion filed on behalf of client, the Court granted downward
variance in sentence; Client sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment

United States v. Colomb, 448 F.Supp.2d 750 (W.D. La. 2006) (holding that client/defendant and co-defendants'

due process rights, and right to fair trial, were violated when district court failed to grant mistrial after government

had disclosed federal inmate's letter indicating that government witness offered to sell to him pictures and information

about defendants).

United States v. Spaniolos, USDC-Southern District of Mississippi
Offense: False Representations to the United States; Theft of Federal Funds (FEMA)
Proceedings: Target Letter and Investigation
Disposition: Government declined to pursue charges against client

FEDERAL CIVIL DISTRICT COURT CASES AND APPEALS

Kurian David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al., USDC-EDLA-No. 08-1220
Nature of case: Human Trafficking - Labor, Civil RICO, Civil Rights Violations
Proceedings: Represented one of several defendants from inception through post-trial motions; 5-week jury trial
Disposition: Defeated plaintiffs’ request for class certification; At trial, lead defendant Signal International
was cast in judgment for $12.5M; Judgment imposed against client’s corporation, but not client individually;

Defeated all of Signal International's cross claims against client

Kurian David, et al. v. World Marine, et al., No. 15-30464 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that Signal International's
cross claims 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/defendant 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

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/defendant
City of New Orleans, their employer, was not liable in respondeat superior)