Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence and life-term of supervised release after he pled guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography and two counts of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in increasing defendant's guidelines range two levels under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F); the district court did not err in failing to give defendant the two-level decrease described in U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(1); and the court rejected defendant's remaining procedural arguments. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court could not say that the district court abused its discretion and imposed a sentence or term of supervised release outside the range of reasonable sentences. Finally, the court agreed with the government that the Commission's 2013 report does not render the non-production child pornography guidelines in section 2G2.2 invalid or illegitimate. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's 151-month sentence and his term of supervised release. View "United States v. Cubero" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences arising from a string of armed robberies he committed in July 2011. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the gun defendant used in each of the robberies was a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3); the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give defendant's requested jury instruction; the court rejected defendant's argument regarding the photographic lineup; and because defendant failed to identify any errors, there can be no cumulative error. Therefore, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. The court also affirmed defendant's seven-year sentence for brandishing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime; concluded that the district court did not plainly err by imposing consecutive 25-year sentences for defendant's second or subsequent section 924(c) offenses; and concluded that defendant's sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to knowingly receiving 481 counterfeit U.S. Postal Money Orders from a foreign country with the intent to pass and publish these same counterfeit money orders as true, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 473. On appeal, defendant appealed her conviction and sentence, contending that her indictment was defective because it did not expressly allege the mens rea element of the section 473 offense. Because even assuming that defendant's indictment omitted a required element of the offense and was defective, the court agreed with the government that this type of indictment defect was not jurisdictional and was waived by defendant's guilty plea. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendants Flanders and Callum appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple counts of inducing women to engage in sex trafficking through fraud and of benefiting from that scheme. Flanders was also convicted of distributing a controlled substance, which he used to impair the victims' judgments such that they would participate in the filming of pornographic videos. The court concluded that Flanders was not prejudiced by the indictment's citation error; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of all counts; the court rejected Flanders' argument of prosecutorial misconduct and affirmed the district court's denial of Flanders' motion for disclosure of the grand jury transcripts and materials; the court rejected Flanders' claims of evidentiary errors; defendants' right to a public trial was not violated by the partial closure of the courtroom; there was no Double Jeopardy violation; defendants' life sentences were substantively reasonable; Flanders' life sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment; the court declined to address the merits of Flanders' claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; and Flanders' pro se appeal of the Final Order of Forfeiture was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Flanders, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. This case arose out of a complex scheme designed to defraud investors through a group of hedge funds called the Lancer Fund. The court affirmed defendant's conviction; affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial; but vacated defendant's sentence because the district court erred when it enhanced defendant's sentence and ordered restitution based on the losses from Morgan Stanley's investment. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Isaacson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for eight counts of child sex trafficking, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1591; one count of conspiring to commit child sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1594(c); and another count of producing child pornography. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his operation of a brothel involving minor girls in his home. The court rejected defendant's constitutional challenges to section 1591 and 1594(c); the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in instructing the jury and did not constructively amend the indictment as to the first nine convictions; and defendant's life sentence was reasonable and did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mozie" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming that police officers' conduct in entering his house without a warrant and then arresting him for punching an officer infringed his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the district court properly denied the officers qualified immunity for entering plaintiff's residence without a warrant or anything remotely approaching reasonable suspicion. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in denying the officers' motions to dismiss the owner's claim for unlawful arrest where the officers' arrest of plaintiff after he punched the officer could not be considered a violation of his Fourth Amendment right not to be seized without probable cause. View "Morris v. Bower" on Justia Law

Defendants, three brothers, appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States and to defraud the United States, and unlawful procurement of citizenship or naturalization - all based on marriage fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants on all counts; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendants' three injury instructions, which they describe as "theory of defense" instructions, because defendants did not present weak, insufficient, or inconsistent evidence of a conspiracy solely with a government agent, entrapment or a perjury trap to support their requested instructions; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a mistrial based on the testimony of a government witness because the government used her testimony to elicit evidence of false statements and facts tending to show marriage fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United Statees v. Chahla" on Justia Law

Defendants Esquenazi and Rodriquez appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy; violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. 78dd-2; and money-laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding the definition of "instrumentality" under the FCPA; the evidence was sufficient to show Teleco was controlled by the Haitian government and performed a function Haiti treated as its own, namely, nationalized telecommunication services; the FCPA was not vague as applied to Esquenazi's acts; defendants possessed the requisite knowledge; the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the money-laundering counts of the indictment or in allowing the jury to decide these counts; and defendants' various sentencing challenges were rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Esquenazi" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, claimed that he was entitled to resentencing because trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase. The district court granted habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing to gather and present additional mitigating evidence and failed to object to the prosecutor's comment about petitioner's preference for the death penalty. The court reversed, concluding that petitioner failed to show that the Florida Supreme Court's decision rejecting his Sixth Amendment claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law. View "Pope v. Secretary, FL Dep't. of Corrections" on Justia Law