Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for transporting and shipping child pornography to a federal agent posing as a minor during a chat room conversation. The court concluded that the jury instructions on entrapment failed to consistently and adequately guide the jury on defendant's only defense to the only charge that carried a mandatory minimum sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Kopstein" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate and practicing Muslim, filed suit against prison officials alleging that they unconstitutionally burdened his religious exercise when they ordered him to provide a urine sample within a three-hour window while he fasted in observance of Ramadan. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's entry of judgment in favor of the officials. The court concluded that the choice either to provide a urine sample by drinking water during plaintiff's fast or to face disciplinary action placed a substantial burden on his religious exercise. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment insofar as it concerns defendant's claim for damages under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and remanded for further consideration of the claim. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the officials on plaintiff's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., claim, his Fourteenth Amendment claim, his First Amendment retaliation claim, and his free exercise claim for an injunction. View "Holland v. Goord" on Justia Law

The United States appealed defendant's sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count of filing a false corporate tax return. The court held that the district court failed to conduct a meaningful review of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and that the cost of incarceration, much less a political phenomenon styled a "government shut-down," was not a permissible factor to consider in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment. The court held that the probationary sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable in light of the need for deterrence and just punishment and the district court's own remarks suggesting that a term of imprisonment was warranted. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Park" on Justia Law

Defendants Reed, Johnson, and Gonzalez appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and one count of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951, and one count of possession and use of a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in the death of another. The court concluded that Reed's Sixth Amendment right to counsel may well have attached when the Grand Jury voted a true bill of indictment against him. The court need not decide that question, however, because any error in admitting at trial the lineup identification of Reed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Other issues raised by defendants are considered in a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for tax evasion. The court concluded that the Government violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by seizing and indefinitely retaining non-responsive computer records, and then searching them when it later developed probable cause. Therefore, defendant's personal records, seized in the execution of the November 2003 warrant and retained for two-and-a-half years, should have been suppressed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a new trial where a juror posted comments about the trial on his Facebook page and became Facebook friends with another juror during the trial. The court reversed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, vacated the judgment of conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ganias" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in the district court presenting claims based on the Supreme Court's holding in Peugh v. United States, and evidence that was purported to be newly discovered. The court held that the rule announced in Peugh does not constitute "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court." Therefore, the court could not authorize the filing of petitioner's successive motion on this basis. While it was possible that petitioner did not previously know New York's pre-2009 DWI requirements, he has not alleged, and the record does not suggest, that he could not have discovered this information through the exercise of due diligence prior to the filing of his section 2255 motion in 2008. Accordingly, the court could not authorize petitioner's successive section 2255 motion on the basis of this purportedly newly discovered evidence. The court denied the motion for leave to file a successive section 2255 motion. View "Herrera-Gomez v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Governor and DCJS on plaintiff's as-applied constitutional challenges to the enforcement of certain amendments to the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), N.Y. Correct. Law 168-h. The amendments were enacted after plaintiff pleaded guilty to misdemeanor attempted possession of a sexual performance by a child, as a result of which he was classified as a level-one sex offender required to register under SORA. The court concluded, among other things, that requiring plaintiff to comply with these post-plea amendments did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Fourth Amendment, nor deprived him of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Doe v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault on a federal officer (Count 1), false personation of a federal officer (Count 2), and concealment of public record (Count 3). The court concluded that the district court did not err in giving jury instructions as to Count One where the district court declined to instruct the jurors that they must agree unanimously as to which theory of the offense supported the verdict; defendant's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 35 motion where the district court did not err in declining to make a determination whether the federal and state sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. McIntosh" on Justia Law

Claimants appealed from the district court's forfeiture orders of 23 of the defendant funds and properties to the United States. The judgments were entered by default after the district court granted the motion of the United States under the fugitive disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. 2466, to strike Claimants' claims to the properties on the ground that Claimants Padma and Reddy (the "Allens") remained outside the United States in order to avoid prosecution in a related criminal case. The court rejected the government's contention that the burden of proof as to intent under the fugitive disentitlement statute was on Claimants. However, the court also rejected Claimants' contentions that summary judgment standards were applicable, and that the court was required to find that avoidance of criminal prosecution was the Allens' sole, dominant, or principal reason for remaining outside of the United States. The court concluded that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that its application of the fugitive disentitlement statute was well within the bounds of its discretion. The court considered all of Claimants' challenges and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Technodyne LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from their convictions of conspiracy; aiding and abetting violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401; mail fraud; and making false statements to federal officials. Defendants argued that the district court improperly excluded evidence that they acted under a good-faith belief that they were complying with state law and that, in any event, their convictions and sentences were irreparably tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. The Government cross-appealed. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, the court was compelled to conclude that the totality of the Government's misconduct in this case, combined with the district court's erroneous exclusion of evidence favorable to the defense denied defendants their right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgments of conviction as to CES, Copeland, and Dunn. The court ordered a new trial. The court also concluded that the district court clearly erred in setting the amount of restitution. Finally, factual and procedural errors required the court to vacate the sentences of Allen and Onoff and remand for resentencing. The court need not, and did not, consider whether their sentences were substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc." on Justia Law