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 were vacated, and case 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United States v. Brown, United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-30235 (unpublished) (holding that law enforcement officers did not act in good faith in executing a search warrant of client’s home, and issuing judge did not have sufficient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. 20-40 (E.D. La. 2020) (Client pled guilty to bribery and tampering with a federal witness; Client faced a sentencing guideline range of 100 to 125 months of imprisonment; Mr. Shapiro prepared and filed a ,ptopm fpr downward variance in sentence and a sentencing memorandum on behalf of client; The Court granted the motion for downward variance and sentenced client to 33 months of imprisonment)

​

United States v. Antoine (E.D. La. 2019) (Client was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and other drug trafficking offenses; Client pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a detectible quantity of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846; Client faced a sentencing guideline range of 168 to 210 months of imprisonment; Court agreed with the Mr. Shapiro prepared and filedsentencing memorandum and motion for downward variance on behalf of client approved of the proposed variance and sentenced client to 84 months of imprisonment)

United States v. Henderson, 660 F. Supp. 2d 751 (E.D. La. 2009) (holding, based on sentencing memorandum motion for downward variance filed on behalf of client, Court held that a downward variance in client's sentence was warranted due to Court's rejection of 100:1 punishment ratio for crack cocaine vs. cocaine powder; Court adopted a 1:1 sentencing
ratio and sentenced client in conformity of this finding yielding a significantly lower sentence (Case was decided prior to the enactment of the Federal Sentencing Act 2010 ratio of 18:1)

United States v. Holden, No. 09-261 (E.D. La. 2009) (Client charged with drug trafficking offenses; Client pled guilty; Client faced career offender sentencing guideline range of 262 to 327 months of imprisonment; Court agreed with the sentencing memorandum and motion for downward variance Mr. Shapiro prepared and filed on behalf of client, approved of the proposed variance, and sentenced client to 156 months of imprisonment)

United States v. Colomb, 448 F. Supp. 2d 750 (W.D. La. 2006) (holding that client and co-defendants' due process rights, including right to fair trial, were violated when district court failed to grant mistrial after government disclosed government federal inmate witness's letter indicating that witness offered to sell false information about defendants to other government federal inmate witnesses; This confirmed defense counsel's theory and ongoing defense at trial that false information about their clients was bought and sold by inmates in order to obtain a reduction in sentence as what at became known as the Federal Bureau of Prisons "jailhouse pipeline.")

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: After discussions with counsel for the government and another review of the evidence, the government declined to pursue criminal charges against client

FEDERAL CIVIL DISTRICT COURT CASES AND APPEALS

Kurian David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al., No. 08-1220 (E.D. La. 2008)
Nature of case: Human Trafficking - Labor, Civil RICO, Civil Rights Violations
Proceedings: Represented one of several defendants from inception through post-trial motions in complex case;

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 insolvent corporation, but not client individually, resulting in no recovery against client's corporation; 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, on Signal International's appeal (later "World Marine"), Signal's cross claims against client and another co-defendant, as well as Signal International's claims for indemnity against client and co-defendant, had been properly dismissed by the district court and by jury on the indemnity claim)

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

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, their employer, was not liable in respondeat superior)