Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for various firearm and drug crimes. The court joined its sister circuits in interpreting the plain language of section 3162(a)(2) of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2), to mean that a defendant who failed to move for dismissal prior to trial on the basis of an untimely indictment waived his right to move for dismissal under the speedy indictment provision of the Speedy Trial Act. Accordingly, the Speedy Trial Act precluded dismissal of defendant's indictment because he failed to move for dismissal prior to trial. The court also concluded that the district court erred by commenting on inadmissible aspects of defendant's criminal history before allowing defense counsel a reasonable amount of time in which to request a poll of the jury but the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights and did not warrant reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cherry, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for three counts of knowingly possessing firearms while illegally and unlawfully present in the United States. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that defendant was illegally or unlawfully in the United States at the time he possessed the firearms in question; there was no Sixth Amendment violation where defendant had given no reason why excluding a government witness's testimony regarding defendant's pending I-485 application and participation in the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System violated his confrontation right and where he was permitted to cross-examine the witness; and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict in this case. View "United States v. Al Sabahi" on Justia Law

Defendant, indicted for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and heroin, was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and deemed incompetent to stand trial. The district court, applying Sell v. United States, granted the government's motion to involuntarily medicate defendant for trial competency purposes. The district court did not mention or analyze any of the less intrusive alternatives suggested by the Supreme Court in Sell or by defendant himself. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings because careful findings concerning the availability of less intrusive means were necessary to vindicate the Supreme Court's admonition that forcible medication motions should be carefully scrutinized due to their impact on personal liberty. View "United States v. Chatmon" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of El Salvador, pled guilty to possession of a concealed dangerous weapon and possession of marijuana in 2004, in violation of Maryland law. In 2008, defendant was found guilty of driving without a valid license. Two years later, defendant pled guilty to assault in the second degree and was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement shortly after sentencing. In 2011, defendant pled guilty to unlawful reentry after removal. The parties disputed whether defendant's 2004 probation-before-judgment disposition triggered a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). The court held that diversionary dispositions arising from guilty pleas - including defendant's probation before judgment disposition at issue here - constituted predicate convictions under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Medina" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for various offenses related to the trafficking of contraband cigarettes. The court saw no merit in defendant's argument that the conduct of ATF agents in this case was unlawful, or otherwise "shocking," or "offensive to traditional notions of fundamental fairness." Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. The court concluded that defendant's claim that the district court miscalculated the forfeiture amount by calculating the sum based on the gross proceeds was without merit. View "United States v. Hasan" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several crimes stemming from his participation in a scheme to arrange fraudulent marriages between Navy sailors and foreign nationals. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. Because the court was satisfied that the statements made by two witnesses on the prison telephone were not testimonial, their admission did not violate the Confrontation clause; because defendant failed to cast doubt on Juror No. 42's assurance that she could set aside any opinion she may have had on the case, the court deferred to the district court's determination that she could serve impartially; the offense underlying the witness tampering counts was the aiding and abetting of false claims and, therefore, the obstruction counts were eligible for grouping only with those counts; and the district court reached a reasonable estimate in its loss calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the cocaine. The cocaine was found in the gas tank of a Ford Explorer as the vehicle was being transported on a commercial car carrier. The court affirmed the judgment, agreeing with the government that defendant failed to prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle. View "United States v. Castellano" on Justia Law

These habeas corpus proceedings on behalf of petitioner were before the court for the third time. Most recently, in 2012, the court affirmed the judgment entered in the Eastern District of Virginia vacating petitioner's 2002 state court convictions for capital murder and other crimes, and the court remanded for further proceedings, leaving in place the district court's remedial edict that petitioner be retried or released. In this appeal, respondent sought relief from the district court's Order Enforcing Judgment. The court concluded that the district court accurately determined that the Commonwealth neglected to timely observe the retry-or-release directive. Though the district court was correct to order petitioner's immediate release, it fashioned an overbroad remedy and thereby abused its discretion by precluding the Commonwealth from retrying petitioner in a new proceeding. Therefore, the court vacated the Order Enforcing Judgment and remanded for the district court to enter a substitute order directing that petitioner simply be released from the custody imposed as the result of his 2002 convictions. View "Wolfe v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate serving a life sentence, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging several constitutional violations relating to the conditions of his confinement. At issue on appeal was whether certain actions taken by prison officials after plaintiff's suspected receipt of contraband, including suspension of the inmate's visitation privileges for two years, violated his constitutional rights. The court concluded that the prison warden who imposed the challenged actions was shielded by qualified immunity from plaintiff's claim for monetary damages because, under the facts presented here, the inmate did not have a clearly established constitutional right to visitation. The court also held that because plaintiff's visitation privileges already have been restored, his request for injunctive relief must be dismissed as moot. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and affirmed in all other respects the judgment of the district court. View "Williams v. Ozmint" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, petitioned for review of the BIA's final order of removal, contending that the BIA erred when it ruled that his Maryland second-degree assault conviction was for a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16, and thus an "aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) that triggered his removability. The court concluded that the Attorney General failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner's assault conviction necessarily rested on facts identifying his second-degree assault offense as a type of assault that qualified as a crime of violence. Consequently, the Attorney General had not met his burden of proving petitioner's removability as an aggravated felon. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order of removal, and remanded to the BIA with instructions to reinstate petitioner's asylee status. View "Karimi v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law