Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences for a conspiracy to unlawfully import goods into the United States. Defendants are the founders and officers of Naver Trading Corp., a company that imports cheese, butter, and bread from Central America for distribution in the United States. The court vacated the convictions and sentences, concluding that the entire indictment did not adequately set forth a violation of criminal law, and subject matter jurisdiction did not exist. View "United States v. Izurieta, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of violating the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., in connection with the operation of a "pill mill." On appeal, defendants argued principally that the jury instruction ran afoul of the decision in Gonzales v. Oregon by evaluating their conduct against a national standard of professional practice. The court held that defendants' argument, raised for the first time on appeal, failed because it was based on a misreading of that instruction. Defendants' remaining arguments about the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of testimony by a police investigator, a search warrant of Defendant Green's home, and the reasonableness of Green's sentence failed too. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and Green's sentence. View "United States v. Joseph, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines and a lawful permanent resident, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's order of removal, as well as the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reconsider. Petitioner was charged with removability for committing an "aggravated felony" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) when he pled guilty to violating Georgia Code 16-8-14, a statute that criminalized shoplifting. The court concluded that a section 16-8-14 conviction did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony; petitioner's record of conviction did not establish that he committed an aggravated felony; and the court granted the petition and reversed the BIA's rulings. View "Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order that he be deported because he was an alien convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. Petitioner conceded that his 2010 conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude. At issue was whether his 2003 Florida conviction for resisting an officer with violence, was also a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the Florida statute required intentional violence against an officer, it criminalized conduct that exhibited a deliberate disregard for the law, which the court considered to be a violation of the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to society. Therefore, the court concluded that the Florida conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude and that the BIA properly determined that petitioner was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). View "Cano v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, three brothers and codefendants challenged their convictions and sentences related to drug offenses. The court concluded that Defendant James Gibson lacked standing to complain about the use of a tracking device to seize incriminating evidence when he was neither in possession of nor a passenger in the vehicle and that the district court protected Defendant Sidney Gibson's right to be free from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. Defendants' remaining arguments also failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Defendants Capers, Frederick and Little appealed their convictions stemming from drug offenses. Capers and Little also appealed their sentences. The government conceded, and the court agreed, that the district court erred when it determined that the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), 21 U.S.C. 841, did not apply to Capers' and Little's respective sentencing guidelines calculations because their crimes were committed prior to the FSA being passed. Therefore, the court affirmed Frederick's convictions and sentences; affirmed Capers' convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing under the FSA; and affirmed Little's convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing under the FSA. View "United States v. Caper" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on two counts of obstructing commerce by robbery and two counts of brandishing a firearm in connection with each robbery. At issue on appeal was whether the district court's decision to analyze defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, rather than presume prejudice under Cronic v. United States, was in error. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not have to presume prejudice where defense counsel, without consulting defendant, conceded that the prosecution had set forth enough evidence to convict defendant of some of the offenses for which he was charged in order to enhance defense counsel's credibility when defending against the other charges. View "Darden v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant and five codefendants were charged in a 16-count indictment with various offenses arising out of their participation in seven armed robberies. Defendant filed this interlocutory appeal after his motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds was dismissed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds where the dismissal of a certain juror was manifestly necessary and the trial could not proceed with fewer than twelve jurors unless defendant stipulated to that in writing, which he did not. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court failed to comply with the notice and consultation requirement before declaring a mistrial because, given the circumstances, the district court's failure to do so was not reversible. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for use of the internet to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and commission of a felony involving a minor while being required to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2260A. Defendant appealed his convictions. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his custodial statement made to a law enforcement officer; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever; and the court rejected defendant's contention that his section 2260A conviction must be reversed because a violation under that provision required offense conduct involving an "actual minor." Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Slaughter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued a police officer for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officer shot plaintiff seven times while plaintiff was in his car. The officer and the city police department subsequently appealed the district court's denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where no reasonable police officer would have used deadly force against plaintiff and where clearly established law gave the officer fair notice that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Further, state agent immunity did not apply to the assault and battery claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Morton v. Kirkwood" on Justia Law