Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Defendant's convictions stemmed from her involvement in a mortgage fraud scheme. The court concluded that there was no evidence or indication that defendant was unable to consult with her attorney or understand the advice offered to her. As such, no error was committed by the district judge in determining that defendant was competent to enter a plea of guilty. The court concluded that her plea was knowing and voluntary. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding defendant responsible for over $12 million in losses and thus imposing a twenty-level sentencing enhancement. The court upheld the district court's two-level enhancements for use of sophisticated means and multiple victims. Based on the record before the district court and the non-specific nature of defendant's objections, the court could not say that the district court's restitution order was based upon insufficiently specific and clear factual findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's guilty plea, sentence, and restitution order. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendants Harrell and Dantzle appealed from their convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery; two counts of robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a); and two counts of having used, carried, or possessed a firearm in relation to the robberies in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The court concluded that Harrell met his burden in establishing that the district court's violation of Rule 11(c)(1), by improperly participating in the parties' plea negotiations, constituted reversible plain error. The district court vacated the conviction and allowed Harrell to withdraw his guilty plea on remand. The court also directed that the case be reassigned. The court concluded that, although the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government to present expert testimony from a detective with respect to cell phones and cell towers, the testimony was harmless because it did not affect Dantzle's substantial rights. The court rejected Dantzle's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed Dantzle's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Harrell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argued that his attorneys, in preparing for the penalty phase, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into mitigating evidence and, as a result, failed to discover and present to the jury the mitigating evidence a reasonable investigation would have disclosed. The district court agreed with the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion that petitioner's claim lacked merit. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in concluding that the Florida Supreme Court properly applied Strickland v. Washington in denying petitioner's ineffective assistance claim. View "Anderson, Jr. v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to theft and embezzlement of employee benefit funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. 664, arguing that the district court should have allowed a credit against loss for satisfaction from the supersedeas bond of the amount he owed his ex-wife under the asset allocation orders issued during his divorce. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to give defendant a credit against the intended loss amount, and it correctly calculated his adjusted offense level and sentencing guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Massam" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that petitioner's argument that he can establish cause because his appellate counsel was ineffective when he failed to investigate and raise the claim of juror misconduct on appeal failed. The court concluded that counsel for petitioner acted in an objectively reasonable manner when he decided not to investigate or raise a claim of juror misconduct on direct appeal. Although petitioner's failure to establish cause for the procedural default alone rendered petitioner's claim unreviewable, he also could not establish prejudice. Petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his claim of juror misconduct because he procedurally defaulted that claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Henry v. Warden, GA Diagnostic Prison" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) for employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, and coercing a minor child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct. The visual depictions had been mailed, shipped, and transported in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce. On appeal, defendant asked the court to overrule its prior, binding precedent in United States v. Smith. The court concluded that the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius said nothing to abrogate its holding in Gonzales v. Raich to the effect that Congress has the power, as part of a comprehensive regulation of economic activity, to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Sebelius said nothing to abrogate the holdings of this court in Smith and United States v. Maxwell, which closely followed the rationale of Raich. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Parton" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred. Petitioner also challenged the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that petitioner had not shown the existence of extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from timely filing his petition. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred, even without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lugo v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Godfrey Cook, a pretrial detainee, was murdered in the county jail by another pretrial detainee. Plaintiffs, the administrator of Cook's estate and Cook's two adult children, filed suit for money damages under federal and statutory law against defendants. The federal claims against all defendants except the Sheriff have been dismissed. This appeal concerned the district court's denial of the Sheriff's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. The court concluded that it was difficult to conclude that the Sheriff was on notice of a substantial risk of serious harm caused by deficient policies in the Jail and, even if he was on notice, a Jail policy permitting detention officers to move a mental health inmate to a different cell, when trained medical personnel have determined that the inmate does not pose a threat to others, did not violate clearly established law. Assuming that plaintiff adequately established that the Sheriff committed a constitutional violation by failing to train the detention officers at the Jail, plaintiff failed to establish that the Sheriff violated clearly established law. Because it was not clearly established that failing to segregate mental health inmates violated Cook's constitutional rights, the Sheriff's failure to train detention officers did not amount to a constitutional violation. Therefore, the Sheriff was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment. View "Keith, et al. v. Brown" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his convictions. The court issued a certificate of appealability (COA) regarding whether petitioner's pro se supplement to his section 2255 motion to vacate was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that petitioner's supplement to his section 2255 motion was untimely. View "Jeffries v. United States" on Justia Law

After defendant murdered a police officer in a Florida cemetery, he was convicted under the federal witness-tampering statute and convicted of a firearm during the commission of a federal crime of violence. On appeal, defendant challenged his life sentence, contending that the district court had no authority to resentence him on the remaining firearm count and, even if it did, the imposition of an enhanced sentence on that count violated his due process rights. The court affirmed defendant's life sentence because the district court had the authority to resentence defendant on Count 2 following the reversal of his conviction on Count 1 and because the life sentence imposed on the sole surviving count was neither more severe than defendant's total original sentence nor the product of vindictiveness. View "United States v. Fowler" on Justia Law