Southern California Defense Blog

On May 1, 2010, the country was tense as it was revealed that a SUV filled with explosives was driven into the heart of New York’s Times Square. The act of terrorism could have endangered the lives of hundreds of people. Fortunately, the explosives failed to detonate. 53 hours later, the FBI arrested the suspected perpetrator, Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen from Pakistan, moments before his flight bound for the United Arab Emirates (with the ultimate destination being Pakistan) was set to take off. Charges have yet to be filed because the investigation is still ongoing.

Shahzal arrived in the United States in 1997 under a student visa, where he eventually earned Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees from the University of Bridgeport, located in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He then worked as an accountant and financial analyst for companies around Connecticut. In 2008, he married Huma Asif Mian, an American citizen, and in 2009, he was granted American citizenship. Before the attack, he had undergone financial hardship, with his home going into foreclosure. In July 2009, he and his family moved to Pakistan, where he was believed to have taken part in a terrorist training camp. He returned to the United States in February 2010 and carried out his terror plot two months later.

This was a case of domestic terrorism. Because he is an American citizen, Shahzad will face federal charges under the traditional American court system. With the investigation still underway and Shahzad cooperating with investigators, charges have yet to be filed.

If you or a loved one is accused of a crime, it is important that you call an experienced attorney at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our attorneys have the skill and expertise to provide you with the best possible defense. The experienced Los Angeles defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience handling all types of cases, including those charged with federal crimes. We know what to look for and we have the knowledge to get to the heart of the matter. Our attorneys can be reached by phone at 1-888-280-6839 or through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

In 1990, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Irving resigned from his San Diego Bench to protest Congress’ decision to pass mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that removed judges’ discretion to impose sentences. Irving considered his position to be his “dream job,” but found the federal mandatory sentencing guidelines “unconscionable.”

The case behind his decision to resign stemmed from an enormous drug cartel prosecution in which he deemed many of the 98 defendants to be young and only peripherally involved in the conspiracy. However, new federal guidelines would have mandated five-year prison sentences for all of the defendants. Irving did not think the mandatory federal guidelines were a fair way to determine sentencing, especially considering the different circumstances associated with every defendant in each case. His resignation ignited a series of resignations by other judges around the country who had similar concerns.

Continue reading "Former U.S. District Judge Resigned From San Diego Bench to Protest Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines - How an Experienced Southern California Criminal Defense Firm Can Help You" »

Some members of the local legal community were surprised on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, when a U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney acquitted former Broadcom chief financial officer William J. Ruehle, and dismissed charges of fraud and backdating stock options against former Broadcom CEO Henry T. Nicholas. However, the judge did more than just dismiss the case with prejudice on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct, which is likely to preclude the case from ever being prosecuted again.

The judge also launched an attack on the federal prosecutors handling the case scorning them for intimidating and threatening key witnesses and lacking evidence to prove the allegations of backdating stock options in order to lower the Irvine semiconductor manufacturing giant compensation expenses on its financial statements to shareholders.

Broadcom is an Irvine chipmaker that during 10 years of public trading had grown into the largest technological company in Orange County employing 7,200 people worldwide and posting $4.6 billion in revenue in 2008. The trouble for the company started in 2007, when it announced a $2.2 billion in undisclosed compensation expenses as part of backdated stock option grants.

At the initial phase of criminal proceeding, the prosecution was able to secure the testimony of a former administrative assistant who had told former chief financial officer Ruehle that stock option backdating was an error in judgment. However, the prosecution was allegedly involved in intimidating witnesses and threatening their attorneys with filing criminal charges against witnesses in a failed attempt to shape their testimony ahead of the upcoming trial.

Continue reading "Broadcom Case Dismissed: William J. Ruehle and Henry T. Nicholas Exonerated" »

If your sentence for committing a federal crime contains some type of error, you must challenge the sentence within the time limits set by law, or you risk waiving your rights to contest the sentence altogether. In U.S. v. Aguirre-Ganceda (2010) 2010 DJDAR 890, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to review his conviction for error. The United States Supreme Court denied cert, meaning that the Court declined to hear the case, and let the conviction stand. The defendant then filed a petition for rehearing of that denial. While his motion for rehearing was pending, the defendant also filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his prison sentence, believing that his prison sentence contained errors.

The trial court denied the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the prison sentence because the trial court held that the motion was untimely. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the trial court’s denial. The Court of Appeal held that section 2255 of the United States Code, which applies to the type of motion the defendant filed, sets forth a one-year period of limitation. Additionally, this one year limitation period begins to run when the Supreme Court denies cert (declines to hear the case), making the judgment “final.” Because the defendant and his lawyer incorrectly believed that the limitations period started when the defendant’s petition for rehearing was denied, the defendant forfeited his right to contest his prison sentence.

Continue reading "Compliance with Time Limits is Crucial to Securing Your Rights" »

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), through the help of Congress has assembled a categorized list of drugs known as the schedule list. The list includes almost all of the drugs, and their derivative compounds, that can be found in the legal or illegal market. There are five “schedules” or categories; each with its own definition, limits, and punishment.

• Schedule One: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.


• Schedule Two: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.


• Schedule Three: (A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.


• Schedule Four: (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.


• Schedule Five: (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Continue reading "Why You Need a Skilled Federal Criminal Defense Law Firm at Your Side when Facing a Federal Drug Offense" »

In September, a Federal Judge in Riverside County sentenced Richard Monroe Harkless to 100 years in prison for operating a Ponzi scheme that bilked investors of about $35 million. Federal prosecutors boast that the sentence is the longest ever imposed for a financial crime in Southern California. Harkless ran the scheme form 2000-2003 through a company he called MX Factors and dozens of the company’s estimated 700 investors wrote the judge to demand a stiff sentence. Victims complained of postponed retirements, sleepless nights, and prescriptions for anti-depressant medications. U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips, in explaining her sentence, said Harkless has caused “every kind of grief imaginable”. The U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the case commented that Harkless has shown zero remorse and the sentence is appropriate given the incredible amount of harm he has caused.

This case highlights the importance of hiring an experienced Riverside federal defense attorney. This is because Harkless made the extremely unwise decision to act as his own attorney at trial. Harkless blamed the losses on a failed business model and argues that agents in his company had made inappropriate promises to investors without his knowledge. To add insult to injury, Harkless argued in his closing that he had no regrets and would make the same decisions again if he had the opportunity. The old adage “a person who defends himself has a fool for a client” rings ever true in this case.

Continue reading "Riverside County Man Sentenced to 100 Years for Operating Ponzi Scheme" »

I am accused of forgery and/or counterfeiting and need a defense attorney

Forgery has several definitions under the law. At its most basic, forgery is knowingly and intentionally creating false documents that are held out as genuine. That includes:

• Signing someone else’s name, or the name of a person who doesn’t exist
• Forging someone else’s handwriting
• Altering or forging documents used as evidence in court
• Falsifying, altering or forging a wide variety of legal documents, or trying to pass falsified documents as genuine, or knowingly receiving forged or counterfeited materials
• Writing a bad check

The list of legal documents that may not be altered or forged is long, but it includes wills, court judgments, checks and other financial documents, deeds or certificates of ownership, medical records, tickets for public or private transit, driver’s licenses and lottery tickets. Importantly, all forgery crimes require the intent to defraud: i.e., you cannot be convicted of forgery if you did not realize a document was false, added material intended to clarify or correct a document or otherwise made an innocent mistake.

Continue reading "Forgery and Counterfeiting Charges in California" »

Judges have the power to reject plea bargains in federal criminal cases; hiring an experienced federal criminal attorney can assist you in obtaining a positive result in your case

A federal judge recently rejected a plea bargain made between the accused and the prosecutors that would have given an Orange County billionaire probation for lying to regulators about his role in an alleged $2.2-billion stock-option scam. The defendant was facing charges that carried a maximum prison term of five years. However, under federal sentencing guidelines, probation would be considered appropriate for someone like the defendant with no prior record.

While it is rare for a judge to reject a plea bargain, it does happen and the judge is within his or her power to reject the terms of any plea arrangement. What this means is that it is critical that if you are facing federal criminal charges that you obtain the services of a highly qualified Orange County federal crime defense lawyer to assist you in your case.

Continue reading "Federal Criminal Case Judges Can Reject Plea Bargains" »

$12.2 million payment and five year probation plea for Orange County billionaire and Broadcom co-founder Henry Samueli rejected

On Monday September 8, 2008 a federal judge in Orange County Federal Court rejected the felony plea deal for Henry Samueli to pay $12.2 million in penalties and serve five years probation as punishment after pleading guilty in June to federal crime charges in Orange County. The judge rejected the deal that prosecutors struck with the Orange County billionaire saying that it created the impression that “justice is for sale.”

Samueli, who co-founded Broadcom, an Irvine-based computer chip manufacturer, plead guilty to the charges after in 2007, Broadcom announced that the company’s executives had misdated stock option grants in order to underreport its compensation expenses. The company posted a $2.2 billion restatement to account for the errors.

Samueli’s Orange County felony defense attorney convinced the prosecutors that the plea deal was adequate but apparently the judge was not convinced. What is important to understand when you practice federal criminal defense is that the federal judge has the power to reject or accept any proposed plea agreement. It is for that reason that anyone being prosecuted for any federal crime needs a highly skilled federal criminal defense attorney on their side.

Wallin and Klarich has over 30 years of experience and are determined to give you the help you need when you are facing a federal criminal charge. Our qualified criminal defense attorneys specialize in all areas of criminal law.Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us 24 hours a day 7 days a week at 1-888-749-0034 to speak to one of our aggressive attorneys.