Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

This appeal concerned a grand jury investigation and the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to a target and his wife, which required the production of records concerning their foreign financial accounts. The government conducted an investigation of, among other things, the Target and his wife's failure to disclose tax returns on foreign accounts and failure to file certain government forms for these alleged accounts. The Target and his wife refused to comply with the subpoenas by producing their records, asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that the subpoenaed records fell within the Required Records Exception and affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to compel. View "In re: Grand Jury Proceedings, No. 4-10" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to distribution of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In 2008, defendant filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) to reduce her sentence on Count 1 based on Amendment 706, which reduced the base offense levels of crack cocaine offenses. In 2011, defendant filed a second section 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce her sentence based on Amendment 750. The court held that the district court's application of the post-Amendment 759 version of U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2) to her case did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; the Commission did not exceed its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. 994 when it amended U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2) to limit a court's discretion to lower a sentence below the amended guidelines range; the Commission did not violate the separation of powers doctrine in amending U.S.S.G. 1B1.10; and the court rejected defendant's contention that U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, as amended, was invalid because the Sentencing Commission did not comply with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, when it amended that policy statement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Colon" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida inmate, filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The court concluded that the Rule 3.800(c) motion was not properly filed within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2) because the state court dismissed the motion as untimely. The motion thus could not toll the period of limitation and the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's habeas petition for untimeliness. View "Penney v. Secretary, DOC, et al" on Justia Law

Four police officers appealed the district court's denial of their motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 unlawful search claim. Plaintiff alleged that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they conducted a warrantless entry into her home and searched it. The court concluded that the officers lacked even arguable probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying their entry into plaintiff's apartment without a warrant or her consent. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court's ultimate conclusion that the officers were not entitled to summary judgment, though not for the same reasons articulated by the district court. View "Feliciano v. Acosta, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed the district court's denial of their habeas petitions, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court held that petitioners' section 2255 motions presented claims that were procedurally defaulted. Because defendants have failed to show that they suffered actual prejudice that worked to their substantial disadvantage, the cause and prejudice exception could not be used to excuse them of their procedural default. Because petitioners have failed to show actual innocence as to the theories supporting their convictions that remain intact following United States v. Skilling, the actual innocence exception did not apply to overcome their procedural default. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of petitioners' section 2255 motions. View "Williams v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempting to set fire to, damage, destroy, or wreck an aircraft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 32(a)(1), when he fired a single shot from a handgun in the general direction of an airborne police helicopter. The judge determined that this was a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), which imposed a mandatory consecutive sentence on anyone who uses or possesses a firearm in connection with such a crime. On appeal, defendant, challenged both the jury's verdict and the judge's determination. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of attempting to damage or disable an aircraft in flight under section 32(a)(1), and that this was categorically a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence. View "United States v. McGuire" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for intentionally misapplying $5,000 or more from an organization receiving in excess of $10,000 in federal funds in a one-year period, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666. Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Defendant had failed to disclose a conflict of interest stemming from his wife's transaction with his place of employment. The court held that no reasonable construction of the evidence presented at trial permitted a finding that defendant intentionally misapplied funds and therefore, the court reversed his conviction. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida prison inmate awaiting execution, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. After the district court denied the petition, it issued a certificate of appealability with respect to certain issues. At issue was whether the Indictment Clause of the Fifth Amendment required that an aggravating factor relied on as the basis for the imposition of the death sentence in a state prosecution for capital murder be alleged in the indictment; whether the Sixth Amendment required that such aggravating factor be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and whether the Sixth Amendment required that the aggravating factor relied on by the State for the imposition of a death sentence be alleged in a state court indictment charging the defendant with capital murder. The court held that, in rejecting petitioner's Indictment Clause claim, the Florida Supreme Court did not hand down a decision contrary to a Supreme Court holding; Evans v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corrs., which was indistinguishable from the case here, required that the court affirm the district court's resolution of the Sixth Amendment issue; and there was no reason to require the State to notify defendants of the aggravating factors that it intended to prove. View "Grim, Jr. v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, conspiracy to commit identity theft and access device fraud; and wrongfully obtaining and transferring individually identifiable health information for personal gain. On appeal, defendant challenged her sentence. The court held that the plain language of the sentencing guideline at issue did not apply to defendant's mere sale or transfer of the patient's identifying information. The U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) enhancement was the appropriate one in defendant's sentencing because the purpose of the conspiracy was realized when the conspirators used the 12 patients' identifying information to obtain the fraudulent credit cards. Thus, the district court procedurally erred in imposing defendant's sentence. Because it was not clear in this case whether the error affected the district court's sentence, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law

Codefendants appealed the district court's order awarding damages to the FTC for engaging in deceptive marketing practices, in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. 310.1-.9. The court held that the amount of net revenue, rather than the amount of profit, was the correct measure of unjust gains under section 13(b). Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err when it considered defendants' net revenues, instead of their profits, in its calculation for damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Federal Trade Commission v. Bishop, et al" on Justia Law