Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, sought a copy of an exhibit from his trial. At issue was whether a federal prisoner may apply for "an order establishing" a "lost or destroyed record of [a] proceeding in [a] court," when the prisoner failed to allege any legal need for the record. The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to hold a hearing to establish a record because petitioner failed to allege any need for the record in any pending or contemplated legal proceeding. View "United States v. Coffman" on Justia Law

Defendants Godwin and Ellis appealed their convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, for racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a motorcycle gang called the Guardians. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror before trial where the district court found that the juror would be affected by her opposition to being away from her child and would be unable or unwilling to focus on the trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in removing a juror after the jury began its deliberations where the juror refused to follow the court's instructions and there was no substantial possibility that the juror was basing his disagreement or his decision on the sufficiency of the evidence; and there was sufficient evidence to convict Ellis of the offenses for which he was convicted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Godwin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for charges related to his involvement in the creation and successful execution of a scheme to defraud the State of Alabama of $7 million dollars. The court found no merit in defendant's challenges to his convictions because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The court also found no procedural or substantive error in defendant's sentence. The court concluded that the district court properly calculated the amount of loss caused by defendant's scheme under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1) and found that the amount of loss caused by his fraud exceeded $2.5 million. The district court's method for estimating defendant's loss was appropriate under the circumstances, and the ultimate "answer" the district court reached was a reasonable estimate of the pecuniary harm defendant's scheme inflicted on the State of Alabama. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Campbell, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner raised several issues on appeal. The court addressed only the juror bias and mental retardation claims. The court concluded that petitioner's claim of racial prejudice on the part of a juror was procedurally defaulted. The court also concluded that petitioner has not overcome the presumption of correctness afforded the state habeas court's factual finding that he did not suffer from "significantly subaverage intellectual functioning." The state court's denial of his mental retardation claim is not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts given the record that was presented. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Fults v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal prisoner, filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, which the district court granted in part because his sentence for possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon exceeded the 10-year statutory maximum. At issue was whether a federal prisoner who directly appeals a resentencing may raise new arguments unrelated to the errors corrected at the resentencing. Because defendant, during the resentencing proceedings, invited the resentencing court to limit the scope of the resentencing counts affected by the order granting in part the motion to vacate, the court will not now vacate that new sentence for errors beyond the scope of that limited resentencing. View "United States v. Haynes, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for bribery of a public official. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial at his first trial. The court held that the district court exercised sound discretion in finding that the jury would be unable to reach a just verdict if it continued to deliberate, and the court deferred to the district court's implicit finding of manifest necessity for a mistrial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's declaration of mistrial and affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Therve" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Congo, appealed the BIA's dismissal of her appeal from the IJ's denial of her application for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At issue was whether an alien must contest her status as an aggravated felon in an expedited removal proceeding before raising that argument before a federal court of appeals. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's argument that her conviction for simple battery does not qualify as an aggravated felony because she failed to contest the only ground for her removal before the department; the court explained that it will not review alleged errors by the immigration judge that the BIA did not expressly adopt; the REAL ID Act, Pub.L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, barred the court from considering issues of fact raised by petitioner, a criminal alien; the BIA committed no legal error when it rejected petitioner's application for withholding of removal; and the BIA committed no legal error when it rejected petitioner's application for protection under the CAT. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Malu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for one count of conspiring to dispense Oxycodone not for a legitimate medical purpose and not in the usual course of professional practice, and five counts of distributing Oxycodone outside the course of professional practice. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress where the application and affidavit for the warrant supported a finding of probable cause; the jury had an evidentiary basis to find defendant was the key man or hub of a single conspiracy to illegally distribute Oxycodone between 2007 and 2011, and no material variance occurred; because the court concluded that the jury properly found a single conspiracy was proved at trial, the court rejected defendant's duplicity arguments; the district court did not err in its drug-quantity findings; joinder was proper and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to sever; and the court rejected defendant's remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court on all issues. View "United States v. Barsoum" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. Petitioner argued that the exclusion of testimony from a corrections officer about general conditions in Florida prisons for those serving life sentences violated petitioner's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right to present mitigation evidence bearing on his capacity for rehabilitation and his ability to contribute in prison. The court concluded that the corrections officer would have said nothing about petitioner's character, conduct, or individual qualities, and could only have guessed about petitioner's potential conditions of imprisonment. Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court did not act contrary to and did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court law when it denied relief on the ground that the corrections officer's testimony was irrelevant and speculative. Even if the decision to exclude the testimony was erroneous, it was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Troy v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of bank robbery. Defendant argued that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights, as interpreted by Alleyne v. United States, when it sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence on the firearm charge. The court concluded that the district court erred under Alleyne because it sentenced defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence based on its own conclusion about brandishing, instead of defendant's admission or a jury's finding concerning that fact. Nevertheless, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Payne" on Justia Law