Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed a district court order adding to her previously imposed sentence a new requirement that she apply all tax refunds and other money she received from any "anticipated or unexpected financial gains" toward an outstanding restitution obligation imposed on her as a part of her sentence. Defendant was convicted of theft of government property because she received Supplementary Security Income (SSI) from the Social Security Administration after her eligibility for such payments had ended. Defendant had been receiving the money on behalf of her special-needs daughter but failed to notify the government when she subsequently married and her husband's income made her ineligible for SSI. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by later amending the original sentence in the absence of evidence of the impact the amendment would have on defendant's ability to support herself and her family and, therefore, the court vacated the order. View "United States v. Grant" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of a stolen firearm after he broke into a house and stole a firearm and other valuables. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order of restitution to reimburse the homeowner for the value of the unrecovered firearm and damage caused by the break-in. The court concluded that the homeowner could not be considered a victim under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663, and so was not entitled to restitution on that basis for the loss defendant caused him; defendant's written plea agreement provided no explicit agreement to pay restitution; and the district court's imposition of the restitution order constituted plain error. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court to the extent it ordered restitution. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

This case involved the government's efforts to civilly commit respondent under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. Because the district court did not clearly err in concluding that respondent did not have a serious mental illness, the court affirmed the district court's finding that respondent was ineligible for civil commitment. Consequently, the court need not address the district court's findings with regard to whether respondent lacked volitional control. View "United States v. Springer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for several crimes related to an investment scheme that resulted in nearly $100 million in losses for investors. The court reversed defendant's money laundering convictions because they were barred by the "merger problem" identified in United States v. Santos; affirmed the remainder of his convictions; and although the court found no error in defendant's sentence, in light of the court's reversal of the money laundering convictions, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Abdulwahab" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess fifty grams or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court found that defendant's conviction was well supported by substantial evidence; the district court committed no error in its pretrial evidentiary rulings; however, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing because defendant was ineligible for the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

Defendant, an interventional cardiologist, appealed his conviction and sentence for health care fraud and making false statements in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care services. The convictions arose from a scheme to defraud insurers by submitting claims for medically unnecessary coronary stent procedures. The court found that, although proof of a physician's failure to meet medical standards, by itself, could not sustain a conviction for the federal offense of health care fraud, the evidence was sufficient in this case to support the jury's verdict. The court found no reversible error in defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McLean" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal entry after deportation and was sentenced to fifty months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculation of his prison term. The court concluded that the district court committed no legal error by its interpretation of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. Instead the district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range by enhancing defendant's offense level, pursuant to section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), in that he had been convicted of a drug trafficking felony in Oregon. Therefore, the sentence imposed was reasonable and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Medina-Campo" on Justia Law

Defendants Cone and Zhao were convicted of various charges under an indictment arising out of a scheme to import and resell counterfeit pieces of computer networking equipment. Defendants appealed. The court rejected Zhao and Cone's attack on the district court's evidentiary rulings and Cone's argument that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. However, the government's theory of prosecution based on a "material alteration" theory of counterfeiting trademarks was not cognizable under the criminal counterfeiting statute based on the facts of this case. Further, the government's evidence on Count 10 was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain Zhao's conviction. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment on certain counts of conviction, affirmed the judgment in all other respects, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted in 1993 of carnal knowledge of a minor without the use of force. In this appeal, plaintiff challenged Va. Code sections 9.1-900 et seq. and 18.2-370.5, which, together, classified her as a sexually violent offender and prevented her from entering the grounds of a school or daycare without first gaining permission from the Virginia circuit court and the school board or the owner of the daycare. Unless plaintiff gains such permission, she is not able to meet with her stepson's teachers at school, attend his school functions, or drop him off at or pick him up from school. Plaintiff's complaint included four counts: she alleged that defendants have violated her substantive due process, procedural due process, associational, and free exercise rights. The injuries she alleged with respect to the first, third, and fourth counts stemmed from impediments the Virginia statute and the school board policy placed on her ability to access school and church property. The court held that because she had not yet attempted to undertake the requisite steps to access these properties, she could not demonstrate that these claims were justiciable. While plaintiff's second count was justiciable, she failed to state a procedural due process claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of her claims. View "Doe v. Virginia Dept. of State Police" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to, among other things, possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to ten years in prison. The law enforcement officer that was responsible for the investigation that led to defendant's arrest and guilty plea admitted to having lied in his sworn affidavit that underpinned the search warrant for defendant's residence and vehicle, where the evidence forming the basis of the charge to which defendant pled guilty was found. The court held that the officer's affirmative misrepresentation, which informed defendant's decision to plead guilty and tinged the entire proceeding, rendered defendant's plea involuntary and violated his due process rights. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision holding otherwise and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Fisher" on Justia Law