Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess and for possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. At issue was whether the admission of a certification of the Secretary of State to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction for prosecution of drug trafficking on the high seas violated defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him at trial. The court concluded that the pretrial admission of the certification did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the certification proved jurisdiction, as a diplomatic courtesy to a foreign nation, and did not prove an element of a defendant's culpability. The court also concluded that the pretrial determination of jurisdiction did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendment; the district court did not err when it determined it had jurisdiction based on the certification of the Secretary of State; the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. 70501 et seq., is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Felonies Clause; and defendant's conviction did not violate his right to due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of the pistol and convict defendant. The court concluded that a prior conviction under Alabama Code 13A-7-7, a statute that was non-generic and indivisible, could not qualify as a generic burglary under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction but vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for drug and possession charges after they tried to rob a stash house based on information given to them from an undercover agent. The court concluded that the district court's supplemental jury instruction was a correct statement of the law regarding entrapment; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury to consider entrapment separately as to each count; the district court did not err in failing to grant Defendant Gustama's motion for judgment of acquittal as sufficient evidence supporting his convictions and neither he nor his co-defendants were entrapped as a matter of law; and Defendant Isnadin was not entitled to relief as this Circuit did not recognize derivative entrapment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Isnadin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that he could experience unnecessary pain when the State of Florida executed him by lethal injection. The court concluded that plaintiff had not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim that the use of midazolam hydrochloride in Florida's current lethal injection protocol amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. In light of the district court's thorough and detailed credibility determinations and the extensive factual findings that flowed from them, the court concluded that plaintiff has not demonstrated that the use of midazolam in the 2013 Protocol created a substantial risk of serious harm. The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction and denied the motion for stay of execution. View "Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida inmate scheduled to be executed, appealed the district court's denial of his pro se request for the appointment of counsel. Through his attorney, plaintiff also sought a stay of execution pending disposition of his appeal and the appointment of the attorney as appellate counsel. Although plaintiff characterized his motion as a request for the appointment of federal counsel, and the district court treated it that way, plaintiff was effectively seeking the substitution of counsel. Unless and until an order is entered removing the attorney or substituting another counsel for him, he remains counsel for plaintiff in this and any future federal habeas proceedings. Because plaintiff could not bring any Martinez v. Ryan-based claims within the one-year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas relief, and because binding precedent foreclosed any argument that Martinez could excuse or equitably toll that limitations period, the appointment of counsel to investigate and pursue such claims would be a wholly futile gesture that rendered 18 U.S.C. 3599's right to federally-funded counsel unavailable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied as moot plaintiff's application for a stay of execution pending the outcome of this appeal and for the appointment of counsel on appeal. View "Chavez v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit, inter alia, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting an Eighth Amendment claim against the Department and officials, alleging that they had acted with deliberate indifference by failing to provide him care for his retinopathy. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that plaintiff had voluntarily, and with informed consent, signed a form refusing a consultation with a retinal specialist. The court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the validity and scope of the refusal form. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim, concluding that the district court will need to evaluate the claim on remand as to each individual defendant, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. The district court may also need to revisit its dismissal of the state law negligence claim. View "Kuhne v. FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to distribute. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conspiracy convictions; the court rejected Defendant Halcomb-Reeves' evidentiary challenges; and there was no discernible error in the prosecutor's closing argument and, if there was error, it was harmless because the record contained sufficient independent evidence of Defendant Moss's guilt. Finally, the district court did not err by attributing at least 150 kilograms of cocaine to Defendant Reeves at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court remanded for the limited purpose of correcting the scrivener's errors in Defendant Reeve's written judgment. View "United States v. Reeves, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas petition and the court granted him a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the district court improperly determined that his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition was time-barred based on its finding that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. In light of Maples v. Thomas, the court held that attorney negligence, however gross or egregious, did not qualify as "extraordinary circumstances" for purposes of equitable tolling; abandonment of the attorney-client relationship, such as may have occurred in Holland v. Florida was required. Because petitioner was not abandoned by his post-conviction attorney, he failed to establish the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the section 2244(d) limitations period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cadet v. Secretary, FL Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of sixteen counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951, conspiracy, and use and carrying of firearms during the commission of a violent crime. The court held that the good faith reliance exception to the exclusionary rule under Davis v. United States applied to this case because the officers' conduct comported with clear, binding precedent that pre-dated the United States v. Jones opinion; the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress; the district court did not abuse its discretion in any of its evidentiary rulings; a reasonable trier of fact could have found Defendant Lowe of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and the charges related to the other armed robberies at issue; and, because there was no evidence that Lowe took any action in furtherance of the Kendall CVS robbery, the court vacated his conviction on those counts and remanded for sentencing. View "United States v. Ransfer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of three counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and (b), and four other counts relating to his possession and use of firearms during those robberies. The court concluded that the district court did not commit error, much less plain error, in imposing a mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3559(c) without any jury findings about the existence of defendant's prior convictions. Relying on the court's precedent in United States v. Holmes and United States v. Cespedes, the court rejected defendant's contention that the combination of section 3559(c) and 21 U.S.C. 851, which resulted in his mandatory life sentence, violated "the Nondelegation Doctrine, Separation of Powers principles, and the U.S. Constitution" by impermissibly giving the executive branch "the power to prosecute and the power to sentence." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law