Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from his involvement in conducting the negotiations for the ransom of a ship seized by pirates and for his participation in the torture of the ship's crew as part of the process. The court affirmed defendant's piracy convictions in Counts 1 and 7, based on his intentionally facilitating two piracies on the high seas, even though his facilitating conduct took place in Somalia and its territorial waters; affirmed the district court's ruling denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of personal jurisdiction based on his being brought into the United States involuntarily; universal jurisdiction was irrelevant to the prosecution of Counts 2 through 6 and each of those counts was based on a statute that Congress validly applied to extraterritorial conduct, including defendant's conduct; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an FBI agent's testimony because they were admitted only as prior inconsistent statements. The court rejected defendant's Crawford v. Washington claim and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Shibin" on Justia Law

Respondent challenged the district court's finding that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that he was a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. 4248. The court concluded that the district court did not err when it found by clear and convincing evidence that the government met each of the three elements of sexual dangerousness. The court rejected respondent's remaining arguments challenging his civil commitment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bolander" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from a conviction for illegally reentering the United States. The court affirmed the district court's application of the "crime-of-violence" enhancement on the basis of defendant's previous Maryland conviction, concluding that the Maryland offense of resisting arrest constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. View "United States v. Aparicio-Soria" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of firearms by a felon and was sentenced to 105 months' imprisonment. At issue on appeal was the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), which provided for a four-level enhancement if a firearm "had an altered or obliterated serial number." Defendant contended that the serial number at issue was legible even though the district court was unable to read the serial number correctly at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, defendant contended that U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) did not apply because no material change was made to the serial number. The court concluded, however, that when a serial number was made less legible, it was altered but not obliterated. Therefore, while the possession of a firearm with a serial number that was no longer legible and conspicuous was covered by 18 U.S.C. 922(k) and U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), a serial number that was less legible or less conspicuous, but not legible, was also covered by section 922(k) and U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of robbery, objected to the district court's career offender enhancement, arguing that he received a "consolidated sentence" for his prior state offenses and thus did not have "at least two prior felony convictions" as defined by the Guidelines. The court concluded that the district court erred in applying the career offender enhancement because defendant had only one prior qualifying sentence, not two. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and death sentence for killing the victim while engaging in a drug trafficking conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. 2. The court concluded that section 848(e)(1)(A) did not apply only to substantive drug offenses and was applicable to a drug conspiracy such as the one in this case; the government presented sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could convict defendant on the section 848(e)(1)(A) charge; there was no error in the jury instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that an anonymous jury was necessary and it took reasonable steps to protect defendant's rights; given the high deference the court gave to the district court in the matter of jury disqualification, the court was unable to say that the district court's decision not to seat Juror 144 was a manifest abuse of discretion; and the district court did not err in excluding certain mitigating evidence from his two daughters. After addressing defendant's remaining claims, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hager" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of illegal possession of a firearm, appealed the district court's application of a cross reference and substitution of the offense level for attempted second-degree murder because defendant had used the firearm on the day of his arrest to shoot another person. The court rejected the government's plain error argument and reviewed defendant's first claim of error de novo; the district court properly imposed a cross reference pursuant to U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(1) because defendant's substituted offense of attempted second-degree murder clearly occurred "during the commission" of the offense of conviction; and the district court did not clearly err in imposing a cross reference to attempted second-degree murder. View "United States v. Ashford" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of charges stemming from his involvement in a scheme to defraud Bank of America, appealed his convictions and sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting evidence found in defendant's backpack; the court affirmed defendant's conviction for aggravated identity theft based on the plain meaning of the statute; and there was no sentencing error in imposing a twelve-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) on the ground that defendant's offense involved an intended loss amount in excess of $200,000, a four-level enhancement for a crime having fifty or more victims under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(B), and a three level-enhancement for defendant's aggravated role as a manager or supervisor of the offense under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Otuya" on Justia Law

Defendant, guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine, appealed the district court's order granting, only in part, his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). In ruling on defendant's motion, the district court used a form document. The court held that the district court's explanation was sufficient and affirmed the judgment because United States v. Legree governed and the facts of defendant's case failed to overcome its presumption that, absent a contrary indication, a court had considered the relevant factors in deciding a section 3582(c)(2) motion. View "United States v. Smalls" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of multiple federal firearm and drug offenses, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence partly on the ground that his counsel had been unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to challenge the search of his vehicle on direct appeal under Arizona v. Gant. The court concluded that defendant's counsel did not perform deficiently in declining to challenge the search on direct appeal because the search of the vehicle was plainly justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement irrespective of Gant. Moreover, counsel's performance did not prejudice defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law