Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a substance containing at least five grams of methamphetamine and one count of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The court held that not all defendants who received the enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) were precluded from relief under subsection (a)(2) of the safety valve. Under U.S.S.G. 5C1.2(a)(2), a defendant possesses a firearm in connection with a drug offense if the firearm is in proximity to drugs or if the firearm facilitates the drug offense. Under the facts of this case, the district court correctly denied defendant relief under the safety-valve where defendant did not fall in a narrow class of defendants who were the least culpable participating in drug offenses. View "United States v. Carillo-Ayala" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was detained for eight months by immigration officials and filed a complaint for money damages against a federal official afterwards. The parties initially agreed that plaintiff was a citizen of the United States, and the district court determined that it had jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint because the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), barred complaints only by aliens. The district court later dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While plaintiff's appeal of that decision was pending, the United States issued an official notice of cancellation of plaintiff's citizenship on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud and illegally, and the parties then disagreed about whether plaintiff was a citizen. The court vacated the order that dismissed the complaint and remanded for the district court to determine whether plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and, if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint. View "Belleri v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of multiple drug offenses and the district court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms. Defendant sought to reduce his sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses, and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372. Because the FSA did not apply to defendant's case, the statutory mandatory minimums that did were the ones that were in place when defendant was sentenced in 1996. Section 3582(c)(2) did not authorize a sentence reduction if a guideline amendment did not have the effect of reducing defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence. View "United States v. Hippolyte" on Justia Law

The BIA found that petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon and denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA found petitioner removable and denied his claims for asylum and withholding of removal because his underlying offense - pointing a firearm at another person, in violation of S.C. Code 16-23-410 - was a particularly serious crime of violence that disqualified him from those forms of relief. The BIA also denied his claim for CAT relief based on factual determinations that he would not be tortured upon return to his native Jamaica. After thorough review of petitioner's arguments on appeal, the court concluded that none of petitioner's claims justified the grant of his petition. View "Cole v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former member of the Jacksonville Port Authority's board of directors, was convicted of honest-services mail fraud, federal funds bribery, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and bribery, and several other crimes predicated on these offenses. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions. The court rejected defendant's contention that the fraud and bribery statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutionally vague as applied in this case; the district court properly instructed the jury on what constituted a "bribe" for purposes of his honest-services and federal funds bribery charges; and the district court did not clearly err or apply the wrong standard in admitting the testimony of the director of procurement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to perpetrating a five-year, $3 million health care fraud scheme. In light of defendant's full restitution payment, his community service, and the rising costs of incarceration, the district court sentenced defendant to probation for the "time served" while awaiting his sentence, varying downward 20 levels. The government appealed defendant's sentence. The court concluded that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness and extent of the crime, nor did it promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, or adequately deter other similarly inclined health care providers. Therefore, the court found that the sentence was substantively unreasonable and an abuse of the district court's discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kuhlman" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. At issue was whether petitioner's counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to argue, either during sentencing or on direct appeal, for a downward variance based on the substantial disparity between the Sentencing Guidelines' treatment of cocaine base and cocaine powder. The court held that petitioner's defense satisfied the constitutional requirements established in Strickland v. Washington and affirmed the judgment. View "Dell v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180-month sentence for possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of at least three violent felonies. On appeal, defendant argued, inter alia, that he should not have been sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 942(e). The court held that, in light of defendant's past convictions for at least three violent felonies, the district court did not err in sentencing him under the ACCA. The court also held that the district court did not err by sentencing him to the mandatory minimum 15 years in prison. View "United States v. Gandy" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Alabama prisoner on death row, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The record compelled a finding that the state used its peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner and violated petitioner's right to Equal Protection as clearly established by Batson v. Kentucky. Because the court determined that petitioner was entitled to habeas relief based on his Batson claim, the court did not decide his other claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Adkins v. Warden, Holman CF, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his petition was cognizable under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255 because intervening changes in the law have rendered section 2255 "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." The court held that all three convictions used by the district court as predicate offenses for defendant's Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), enhancement - aggravated assault and shooting into an occupied building, battery on a law enforcement officer, and aggravated battery - were properly qualified as violent felonies. Therefore, the court discerned no error in defendant's sentence and affirmed the judgment. View "Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium) " on Justia Law