Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 2250(a), which makes it a crime for someone who was required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16913, to travel in interstate commerce and knowingly fail to update his registration. Defendant traveled from New York to Nevada without updating his registration. The court concluded that the constitutionality of SORNA as applied to defendant remained unaffected by any limitations on Congress's Commerce Clause power that could be found in the Supreme Court's decision in Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robbins" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the restitution order entered against him under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A. The order awarded over $17 million to victims for losses stemming from defendant's role in the manipulation of the price of a publicly traded security. The court concluded that the district court was authorized to enter the restitution order despite section 3664(d)(4)'s ninety-day requirement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution despite the complexity and duration of the restitution proceedings; the district court's decision that it was not required to expand the evidentiary hearings to include the live testimony and cross-examinations of affiants was within its discretion and did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment right to due process; the district court carried its burden under the Act where it credited the government's expert's well-supported proffer of a widely accepted methodology, trained towards a logical measure of loss, and tailored to the particular circumstances of this case; and the court rejected defendant's remaining grounds for appeal which all focused on the accuracy of the amount of the district court's restitution award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gushlak" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City and its officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging arrest without probable cause and conduct of a visual body cavity search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that there was "arguable" probable cause and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff's false arrest claim under section 1983; defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where a reasonable officer would not have understood that conducting an otherwise suspicionless visual body cavity search of a person arrested for a felony drug offense was unlawful; and plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim failed where plaintiff was in fact guilty of at least criminal possession of a controlled substance. View "Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to charges related to his role in a drug conspiracy. At issue on appeal was whether a plea was "voluntary," under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(2), even though the district court did not inquire into a separate confidential cooperation agreement before accepting defendant's plea. The court concluded that the district court did not commit plain error by doing this because defendant's plea agreement did not depend on the cooperation agreement; the government did not breach its cooperation agreement with defendant; and defendant's ineffective assistance claims were dismissed without prejudice so that defendant could raise these claims in a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Tarbell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts relating to illegally bringing an alien into the United States. At issue on appeal was the government's use of evidence that defendant asked to speak to a lawyer when a border patrol agent initiated an interview prior to his arrest. The court concluded that this use of evidence in the government's case in chief violated defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Okatan" on Justia Law

Four defendants appealed their convictions for planning and attempting to carry out domestic terrorism offenses involving a plot to launch missiles at an Air National Guard base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, New York and two synagogues in the Bronx. Defendants raise several issues on appeal. The court rejected claims of entrapment as a matter of law, claims of outrageous government conduct and knowing use of perjured testimony in violation of the Due Process clause, and defendants' remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Cromitie (Williams)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City of New York and police officers, asserting claims of constitutional torts involving arrest without probable cause and malicious prosecution. In regards to the timeliness of plaintiff's suit against the John Doe officers, the court concluded that plaintiff waived the arguments he raised on appeal by failing to raise them in the trial court. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims of municipal liability against the City should not have been dismissed by reason of Officer Symon's entitlement to qualified immunity and the untimeliness of plaintiff's suit against the Doe defendants. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment in favor of the City and remanded those claims for further consideration. View "Askins v. City of New York et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of firearms by a convicted felon and possession of a machinegun by any person. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearms, which were discovered after a warrantless entry into defendant's motel room, based on the inevitable discovery doctrine. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that the record supported a finding that the evidence at issue would inevitably have been discovered. The district court's inevitable discovery analysis was erroneous in several respects and the court held that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the guns and ammunition would inevitably be discovered. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction, reversed the denial of the suppression motion, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Stokes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after her arrest and detention pursuant to a material witness warrant. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of her motion for reconsideration as to the individual defendants. Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in finding that detaining an individual for two days pursuant to a material witness warrant was a prosecutorial function entitled to absolute immunity. The court agreed and held that defendants were not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity with respect to plaintiff's allegation that she was unlawfully detained for investigative interrogation. In the absence of any discovery by plaintiff, the record was insufficiently developed at this stage. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Simon v. City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for committing an assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court agreed with defendant that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) was within "the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Even though the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the jurisdictional element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the court affirmed the judgment because the jurisdictional status of the MDC was a "legislative fact" of which the court could take judicial action. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims in a separate summary order. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law