Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and the district court imposed a mandatory life sentence. The court held that, because the district court's FRAP 10 findings were amply supported by the evidence presented at the hearing and enabled defendant to perfect his appeal, the court need not and did not address whether the Court Reporter Act, 28 U.S.C. 753(b), was violated; the district court's admission of the challenged statements was neither erroneous nor an abuse of discretion; and the court rejected defendant's challenge to his mandatory life sentence pursuant to Almendarez-Torres v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Graham" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to accessing the internet via computer with the intent to view child pornography. The district court calculated defendant's offense as involving more than 600 images of child pornography, and as a result, imposed a five-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(7)(D). The court held that the district court was true to both the spirit and letter of Section 2G2.2(b)(7) in counting every image sent by defendant to every person when applying the number of images enhancement. The court also held that the district court did not err as a matter of law when it counted each image in each email separately without regard to the uniqueness of the image when applying the Section 2G2.2(b)(7) enhancement. As such, the court affirmed the five-level enhancement and affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of numerous charges arising from a tax fraud scheme operated through his business of preparing income tax returns for private individuals. Defendant appealed. The court held that, although defendant's trial was affected by two errors - the prosecutor's improper statement and the district court's refusal to give the requested character evidence instruction - when considered both individually and cumulatively, did not warrant reversal of defendant's convictions. The court also held that the district court did not improperly restrict defendant's right to testify in his defense and correctly instructed the jury regarding the identity theft offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of two offenses: the misdemeanor offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in contravention of Virginia Code section 18.2-371; and the felony offense of violating the Commonwealth's criminal solicitation statute, found in section 18.2-29. The predicate felony for petitioner's criminal solicitation offense was Virginia Code section 18.2-361(A) ("the anti-sodomy provision"). The court subsequently granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the anti-sodomy provision was unconstitutional either facially or as applied in petitioner's case, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. The court held that the anti-sodomy provision did facially violate the Due Process Clause and therefore, reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for an award of habeas corpus relief. View "MacDonald v. Moose" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's holding that his Tennessee statutory rape conviction qualified as a generic "statutory rape" offense and thus constituted a "crime of violence" under the sentencing enhancement established in U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Because Tennessee's statutory rape provision set the age of consent at eighteen and was therefore significantly broader than the generic offense, the court held that a conviction thereunder did not categorically qualify for the crime-of-violence enhancement. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Rangel-Castaneda" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of intent to distribute crack cocaine and distribution of powder cocaine. Following Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered sentences for certain crack cocaine offenses, the district court granted defendant's motion to reduce his sentence. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in holding that it had not originally made a finding that rendered defendant ineligible for the reduction, or otherwise abused its discretion. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Mann" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of carjacking, using a firearm in furtherance of carjacking, and conspiracy. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the discovery of the actual dates of the Short Hair Picture - a photo of a second suspect with short hair - and the Dreadlocks Picture - a photo of the second suspect with dreadlocks - constituted newly discovered evidence and, alternatively, that the government's failure to disclose this fact violated Brady v. Maryland. The court concluded that defendant was entitled to a new trial because the court found that the district court erred in rejecting defendant's newly-discovered-evidence argument. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's decision allowing him to represent himself at trial in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Indiana v. Edwards. The heightened standard discussed in Edwards, which applied when the district court considered whether to force counsel on a severely mentally ill defendant competent to stand trial who wished to represent himself, did not control. The court held that this case was more akin to Godinez v. Moran because the district court granted defendant's request to represent himself. Because the court rejected defendant's interpretation of Edwards and was satisfied that the district court applied the correct legal standard, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bernard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of crimes stemming from a scheme where he faked his death with the assistance of his girlfriend in order to avoid a state probation violation hearing. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. Although the government did not prove that defendant's girlfriend was aware and therefore intended that the U.S. Coast Guard would respond to the false distress call, it proved that she knew of and participated in the plan and that, under the plan, a false distress call would be made. With this proof and proof that the U.S. Coast Guard received the call, the government established a conspiracy to violate 14 U.S.C. 88(c), regardless of whether the conspirators knew or intended that the Coast Guard would receive the call. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not "plainly unreasonable," the standard applicable when, as here, no Guidelines existed for the offenses committed. View "United States v. Deffenbaugh" on Justia Law

Defendant, a juvenile, appealed from the judgment of the district court which imposed, as a condition of his juvenile delinquent supervision, that he register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing the sex offender registration condition because the court concluded that Congress, in enacting SORNA, intentionally carved out a class of juveniles from the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act's, 18 U.S.C. 5031 et seq., confidentiality provisions, and that SORNA's registration requirements were not punitive as applied to defendant. View "United States v. Under Seal" on Justia Law