Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), 18 U.S.C. 1832, and the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), 18 U.S.C. 2314, after he replicated his former employer's (the Bank) confidential computer code to give to a competitor in exchange for money. On appeal, defendant challenged the legal sufficiency of the charges in light of United States v. Aleynikov. The court concluded that, on plain-error review of defendant's defaulted legal sufficiency challenge to his EEA conviction, defendant failed to show that purported error in the pleading of the law's jurisdictional element affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; on plain-error review of defendant's defaulted legal insufficiency challenge to his NSPA conviction, defendant failed to show that the theft of the computer code did not satisfy the law's goods, wares, or merchandise requirement; and defendant's remaining claims failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Agrawal" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. After the Government instituted removal proceedings, petitioner filed a motion to suppress the Government's evidence, arguing that ICE officers obtained the evidence in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they forcibly gained entrance to his home and arrested him without a warrant or probable cause. The court concluded that the IJ erred in finding that petitioner's submissions were insufficient to shift the burden to the Government to establish consent and erred in concluding that the facts alleged, even accepted as true, were insufficient to yield an egregious Fourth Amendment violation requiring suppression. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Cotzojay v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of drug-related charges stemming from his involvement in a group that sold marijuana in the East Flatbush area of Brooklyn, New York. The court concluded that defendant's contentions on appeal were without merit, except with respect to the statute-of-limitations challenge to his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court declined to uphold defendant's conviction under section 924(c) on the basis of the fiction that, simply because he continued to sell marijuana, he continued to possess the gun in question after it was seized from him by the police. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction as to that count but affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Jones (Praddy)" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the Animal Rights Front (ARF) and two of its members, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that defendant, a Hartford Police Sergeant, violated their constitutional rights when he arrested two of ARF's members at a children's foot race while they were protesting the treatment of animals by the race sponsor Ringling Brothers. The court concluded that the district court properly entered judgment in favor of defendant on the basis of qualified immunity because there was arguable probable cause that plaintiffs engaged in disorderly conduct with the predominant intent required by Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-182(a)(5). The court remanded for clarification as to whether the district court awarded costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 26(g)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zalaski v. City of Hartford" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, and 1349. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a conspiracy to defraud a non-existent investor of three billion dollars. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that any misrepresentations defendants made were material. The court concluded, however, that defendants' sentences were procedurally unsound where the court was uncertain whether the district court weighed the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Juncal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and for negligence, after plaintiff's son was shot and killed by a state trooper. In regards to the negligence claim, the court found nothing in the record that contravened the district court's conclusion that there was no evidence either that the planning of the search contributed to the son's death, or that the trooper shot the son unintentionally; in regards to the timing of the search, the court agreed with the district court that the matter of premature entry was immaterial to the question of excessive force; and in regards to the sufficiency of the evidence, a district court's denial of a motion for new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds was not reviewable on appeal. The court concluded, however, that in the circumstances of this case - the close-range shooting of a suspect by a law enforcement officer - the district court was required to instruct the jury that it must find that this use of force was excessive unless the jury found that the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Because the district court did not give this instruction, it plainly erred under the current law. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Rasanen v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Although the district court expressed the terms of the waiver imperfectly, the objection was unpreserved. Under the circumstances, the court concluded that defendant made a knowing and voluntary appeal waiver and, under this standard, failed to establish plain error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and did not reach the merits of his argument. View "United States v. Nourse" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to discovery, a hearing, or vacatur of his conviction based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his plea of guilty. The court concluded, however, that petitioner was entitled to resentencing and to be represented by competent counsel at the resentence where counsel's performance was deficient with regard to sentencing and petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's performance. View "Gonzalez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography. The court concluded that because Vermont's statutory rape provision under which defendant was convicted was non-divisible, the district court should have applied a categorical approach, without recourse to the underlying facts of defendant's state convictions. The court also concluded that, under the categorical approach, Vermont's statutory rape provision was related to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2), thereby triggering that section's sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Barker" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their securities fraud and conspiracy convictions stemming from their involvement in a double-blind, high-volume insider trading network that led the participants to acquire over $10 million in profits. The court held that wiretap evidence was lawfully obtained and therefore properly admitted; the jury had sufficient evidence to convict Defendant Kimelman of securities fraud; the conscious avoidance jury instructions were proper; evidence of Kimelman's rejection of a plea bargain was properly excluded; and defendants' sentences were reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Goffer" on Justia Law