Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to bank robbery and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. On appeal, defendant challenged his 121-month sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the two-level physical restraint enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where it was within the applicable guideline range and where the district court considered the 18 U.S.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Victor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a 67-year-old man suffering from dementia and prone to disorientation and confusion, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants after he was severely beaten by his cellmate while detained at the County Jail. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment where nothing in the record created a genuine issue of fact as to whether the prison officers were subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff; the complaint failed to allege that the Sheriff's Department policy or custom actually caused plaintiff's injuries; and because plaintiff's principal claims fail, it followed that his wife's derivative loss of consortium claim must fail too. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Goodman, et al. v. Kimbrough, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the officers' seizure here was not authorized by the Fourth Amendment because the constitutional authority to make a stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio was dependent on the exigencies associated with on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat. The timing and circumstances surrounding the officers' seizure of defendant in this case placed it well outside of the Terry exception to the probable cause requirement. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying defendant's motion and the court vacated his conviction. View "United States v. Valerio" on Justia Law

Defendant and his wife were indicted on charges of marriage fraud, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325(c), and making a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement to DHS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's motion to dismiss his marriage fraud indictment on statute of limitations grounds. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to dismiss and reversed the judgment because the plain meaning of section 1325(c) dictated that the crime of marriage fraud was complete on the date of marriage and, as a result, the government's indictment was time-barred. View "United States v. Roja" on Justia Law

Three codefendants appealed their convictions stemming from a "pay-to-play" conspiracy in which they paid kickbacks to several hospital facility managers in order to obtain lucrative service contracts with those hospitals. Defendant Pacchioli contended that the statute of limitations barred his two substantive bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2) because, if he reached an agreement to bribe, it occurred more than five years prior to the indictment, and that, in any event, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of either conspiracy to bribe or the two substantive charges. The court concluded that Pacchioli was indicted within the five-year limitations period where the jury found that he gave a thing of value within the five years preceding his indictment. The court also concluded that the evidence taken as a whole was sufficient to allow the jury to find Pacchioli guilty of the crimes for which he was charged. After thorough review of all of the defendants' claims, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pacchioli, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision to deny his request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ and BIA concluded that petitioner was subject to removal and that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT because he had failed to prove that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in Mexico. The court denied the petition for relief, concluding that the BIA committed no error of law; rejected defendant's argument that his removal to Mexico would violate his right to due process; and directed the court to seal records of petitioner's guilty plea and those portions of the record that contained information about the identity and whereabouts of petitioner's family. View "Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant, a lawyer, deposited lucre in his law firm's bank accounts after he was convicted of criminal activity, where it was commingled with the firm's receipts from legitimate clients. At issue was whether the money in the bank accounts at the time defendant was charged was subject to forfeiture. The sheer volume of financial information available and required to separate tainted from untainted monies in this case lead the court to apply the Third Circuit's rule in United States v. Voigt; in this case, the district court erred in ordering forfeiture of the funds as proceeds; consequently, all proceedings the court held subsequent to the imposition of defendant's sentence must be vacated; the court's conclusion did not foreclose the Government's attempt to forfeit a property interest held by defendant individually; and, after addressing the parties' remaining arguments, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rothstein" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida death row inmate awaiting execution, petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition and issued a certificate of appealability (COA). In Grim v. Sec'y. Fla. Dep't of Corr., the court faced the same issues the district court posed in the COA it issued in this case. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's decision rejecting defendant's claim that the Sixth Amendment did not require that his indictment "specify... which aggravating circumstances [the State] would rely on in seeking the death penalty," was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Grim panel held that the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago resolved the second issue: whether the Fifth Amendment's indictment clause required that the aggravating circumstances be found by the grand jury and charged in the indictment. In McDonald, the court concluded that the grand jury indictment requirement was not applicable to the States. Accordingly, in light of Grim and McDonald, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. View "Heath v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Sentinel for criminal contempt of court for resisting the Superior Court's order granting him a writ of habeas corpus and "using its position as a probation company to attempt to collect a debt that is not owed or due by threatening to have [plaintiff] jailed without bond." Plaintiff also alleged that Sentinel engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. 16-14-1 et seq. Sentinel removed the suit to the district court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). The court rejected plaintiff's arguments under CAFA; concluded that the district court did not err in shifting the burden of production to plaintiff in response to Sentinel's testimonial evidence; and concluded that plaintiff offered no citation to support the theory of corporate liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sentinel. View "McGee v. Sentinel Offender Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for the robbery of four banks in the greater Atlanta area during 2003 to 2006 and an attempt to rob another in 2007. The court concluded that, based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Perry v. New Hampshire, which required no preliminary examination for an identification not arranged by law enforcement officers, the admission of the in-court identifications of defendant did not violate his right to due process; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of defendant's conviction for attempted bank robbery; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant a new trial; but the district court erred when it applied the enhancement for abduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing with instructions to apply the two level-enhancement for physical restraint instead of the four-level enhancement for abduction. View "United States v. Whatley" on Justia Law