Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; possessing with intent to distribute cocaine; possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that, under the independent source exception, the exclusionary rule did not bar admission of the evidence seized on the property, even if the placement of the GPS tracking device and the dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to give the Allen charge where the charge was not premature nor coercive. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bush, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant McQueen, a Sergeant at the South Florida Reception Center (SFRC), appealed his conviction for conspiring to deprive several inmates of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and for obstruction of justice. Defendant Dawkins, a corrections officer at the SFRC, appealed his conviction for obstruction of justice. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants; the district court did not err in denying defendants' request to give the jury two defense instructions regarding accomplices, informers, or immunized witnesses, and multiple conspiracies; and the government did not improperly bolster the credibility of a corrections officer where any claimed error did not affect defendants' substantial rights. The court concluded, however, that defendants' sentences were substantively unreasonable because they were wholly insufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing set forth by Congress in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Accordingly, the court vacated each sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. McQueen" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1519 and 2232(a) because he harvested undersized red grouper in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The court concluded that sufficient evidence was presented at trial for the jury to conclude that the fish thrown overboard were undersized; a fish is a "tangible object" within the meaning of section 1519; and defendant's right to present a defense was not prejudiced by the district court's ruling that disallowed defendant from calling an expert witness during his case-in-chief. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Yates" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of drug-related offenses. Count 2 charged that defendant did knowingly use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and did knowingly possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the district court constructively amended Count 2 of defendant's superseding indictment and that the amendment satisfied the plain-error standard. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction as to that count and remanded. The court affirmed defendant's other convictions. View "United States v. Madden" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for distributing crack cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender. Defendant argued that his prior Florida conviction for third degree abuse of a minor did not require intent to cause physical injury or even a reasonable likelihood of physical injury and, therefore, that conviction did not satisfy the federal crime-of-violence definition. Defendant unsuccessfully raised this issue at both sentencing and on direct appeal but the court held that he could use a timely-filed first motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to pursue the same issue when an intervening case from the Supreme Court validated his argument and applied retroactively. The court concluded that, as a result of the intervening Supreme Court cases of Begay v. United States and Sykes v. United States, the record did not permit the conclusion that defendant's Florida conviction for third degree felony child abuse was a crime of violence. The court concluded that categorizing defendant as a career offender amounted to a violation of the laws of the United States in a way that was a fundamental defect that inherently resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice and presented exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus was apparent. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to resentence defendant. View "Spencer v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture and possess marijuana with the intent to distribute, as well as the substantive crime of manufacturing and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. The court concluded that defendant was aware before trial that the Government used GPS tracking, but did not challenge the tracking. Therefore, the court would not set aside defendant's waiver of his suppression claim. The court also concluded that counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a meritless suppression motion; the evidence was sufficient to support the sentencing enhancement for conspiracy involving more than 1,000 marijuana plants; the admission of translated transcripts of the wiretaps through a co-conspirator's testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's request to submit the forfeiture allegations to a jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Curbelo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of malice murder and armed robbery, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. Petitioner raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a violation of Brady v. Maryland. The court concluded that, in light of the evidence as a whole, the state court's determination, that petitioner was not prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel, was not objectively unreasonable. The court also concluded that petitioner's Brady claim was procedurally defaulted and petitioner failed to overcome the procedural default by showing cause and prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Bishop v. Warden, GDCP" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for transferring a firearm to an out-of-state resident when neither he nor the buyer was a licensed firearms dealer. The court concluded that the record was completely bereft of any evidence that the buyer was, as a matter of objective fact, unlicensed at the time of the sale. The government's error in not submitting evidence of the buyer's licensure status was not harmless, and therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal on defendant's behalf as to Count II of the indictment. View "United States v. Bernardo" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of committing murders during an attempted armed robbery and was sentenced to death. The Alabama appellate court held that petitioner's trial counsel was not ineffective in the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence under Strickland v. Washington; the trial judge's override of the jury's life-sentence recommendation did not violate Ring v. Arizona; and the State's peremptory challenges did not violate Batson v. Kentucky. The court concluded that the state court's denial of petitioner's claims was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under section 2254(d). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lee v. Commissioner, AL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend that denial. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing regarding his claim of "mental retardation" under Atkins v. Virginia. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment denying the habeas petition and remanded for further proceedings. Because the court remanded as to this issue, the court need not resolve petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Burgess v. Commissioner, AL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law