Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony and was sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently sought review of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, arguing that changes in state law that lowered the maximum sentence applicable to a prior state court conviction rendered him no longer subject to sentencing under the ACCA. The court held that petitioner's prior drug convictions counted as a predicate "serious drug offense" under the ACCA. Coupled with the pair of violent felonies (robbery and attempted assault), petitioner's criminal record included three ACCA predicate felonies. Thus, the district court did not err by imposing the sentencing enhancement and, therefore, properly denied petitioner's motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint alleging that his conditions of confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. First, he plausibly alleged conditions that, perhaps alone and certainly in combination, deprived him of a minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Second, he plausibly alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to this deprivation. Third, he plausibly alleged violations of clearly established rights. In light of the specific allegations here, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Walker v. Schult" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction, seeking vacatur of the judgment and dismissal of the indictment with prejudice on the ground that he was not retried following an earlier mandate of this court within the time prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(e). The court concluded that, however preferable section 3161(e) findings extending the time for retrial to be made within the initial 70-day retrial period, the statute itself did not impose such a requirement. For that reason, and because the court identified no error in the district court's decision to grant an extension to 180 days or in its determination that defendant was tried within that time, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Shellef" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's grant of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) pursuant to Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the district court did not err in declining to apply a downward variance to sentence defendant below the reduced Guidelines range. Under U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, the district court did not have discretion to apply the variance to which defendant asserted he was entitled. In spite of defendant's arguments to the contrary, U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 bound the district court, was a valid exercise of the Commission's authority, and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., requirements for the promulgation of formal rules. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Erskine (Johnson)" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm and body armor as a convicted felon, arguing that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Defendant relied on recent Supreme Court opinions developing a more expansive interpretation of the Amendment. But in both of these opinions, the Supreme Court clearly emphasized that recent developments in Second Amendment jurisprudence should not "be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons." Therefore, the court joined every other circuit to consider the issue in affirming that section 922(g)(1) was a constitutional restriction on the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons. View "United States v. Bogle" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. Rather, the district court had the discretion to conclude that a sentence of 168 months was as low as the circumstances warranted, even in light of the lower Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2). On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable. The district court imposed defendant's 57-month sentence to run consecutively to his existing sentence after considering his history, characteristics, and the goals of sentencing, most notably, deterrence. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court acted well within its discretion in imposing the sentence. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of drug offenses and subsequently appealed his resentence. After defendant's resentencing, the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 750, which retroactively lowered the base offense levels for crack-cocaine offenses pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-120, 124 Stat. 2372. At issue on appeal was whether the sentencing court, exercising its authority under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), could give defendant the additional benefit of a downward departure previously awarded in the original sentencing. The court held that the provisions of U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 of the Guidelines, as incorporated by section 3582(c)(2), required a resentencing court to apply the amended Guidelines range that would have been applicable to the defendant under the retroactive amendment, without applying any previously-granted departure, except for a departure granted upon an appropriate motion by the government based on the defendant's substantial assistance to authorities. Applying that rule to this case, the court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that defendant was not entitled to a downward departure. View "United States v. Steele" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion for resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) and U.S.S.G. 1B1.10. Although the district court concluded that defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction, it declined to reduce his sentence, finding that he posed a danger to the community based on his conduct while in detention. Defendant had incurred eight disciplinary sanctions while incarcerated, five of which (and the most violent) occurred after he was sentenced. The court concluded that the district court acted well within its discretion in considering this conduct and denying a sentence reduction on that basis. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Figueroa" on Justia Law

Defendant's criminal conduct involved selling various drugs to a confidential source working with the DEA. The central issue raised on appeal was whether the district court erred in concluding that defendant was not entitled to a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. Although defendant pleaded guilty to his drug conspiracy charge in a timely fashion, he also attempted to smuggle drugs into a detention center after his plea but prior to his sentencing. Such conduct was inconsistent with accepting responsibility, and the district court was therefore well within its discretion in denying defendant a reduction in his sentence on that basis. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was otherwise procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chu" on Justia Law