Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of crimes related to his involvement in an elaborate fraudulent sweepstakes scheme out of Costa Rica that primarily targeted elderly United States citizens. On appeal, defendant challenged the restitution order that the district court entered after the court remanded his case for resentencing. The court held that the district court lacked the authority to reconsider the restitution on remand and vacated the order, remanding with instructions to the district court to reinstate the previous restitution order. View "United States v. Pileggi" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to enticing or attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court held that defendant's primary contention that the district court erred in interpreting 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), was procedurally defaulted because he failed to raise it during his initial plea proceeding. Moreover, defendant's statutory claim failed on the merits. The court also held that defendant's ineffective assistance arguments provided no substantive grounds for relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fugit" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court held that, because the stop and search of defendant's car and seizure of his cell phone did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 29 motions to dismiss where there were sufficient facts from which a jury could conclude that defendant possessed the ammunition. The court further held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable and the district court did not err in determining a base offense level of 26. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment View "United States v. Lawing" on Justia Law

Defendant, a convicted felon, pled guilty to possession of ammunition. On appeal, he contended that application of the felon-in-possession prohibition to him violated the Constitution. The court held that the application of the felon-in-possession prohibition to allegedly non-violent felons like defendant did not violate the Second Amendment. The court also held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where there was a rational relation between the felon-in-possession prohibition as applied to a collector of dangerous, often stolen weapons and explosives who had repeatedly and flagrantly ignored the law. Accordingly, the court found defendant's claims on appeal to be without merit and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pruess" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiring to commit mail fraud. The court held that even if the district court erred in requiring defendant to adhere to the proffer agreement, admission of the proffered statements at issue was harmless; the district court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal where the government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that CitiCapital had a property interest in the lease-to-own payments at issue; the government submitted sufficient evidence to the jury that it could find that defendant obtained the payments "by means of material false or fraudulent pretenses[;]" and the government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant caused the mails to be used to execute his fraudulent scheme. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gillion" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury conviction of a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant also challenged his sentence. When defendant stole money from the dry cleaners' cash register, depleting an inherently economic enterprise of its assets, the Hobbs Act jurisdictional requirement was satisfied. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not plainly err when delivering the jury instructions; and defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Tillery" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from two counts of theft of public money and one count of committing acts affecting a personal financial interest. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss where it properly exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over him. The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his post-arrest statements to FBI and DOS agents. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions on the two counts of theft of public money. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ayesh" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter during the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. The underlying unlawful act was an alleged violation of 36 C.F.R. 4.23(a)(2), which provided that "[o]perating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while . . . [t]he alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood[.]" The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the toxicologist's generic testimony on alcohol metabolization. Nor was defendant entitled to judgment of acquittal because the government's evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

These appeals arose from allegations that the City of Durham and its officials mishandled false rape charges made against members of the 2005-2006 Duke University lacrosse team. The City and its officials asserted various immunities from suit and on that basis moved to dismiss, or for summary judgment, as to all claims alleged against them. The district court granted those motions in part and denied them in part. The City and its officials appealed. The court reversed the district court's denial of all defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims alleged against them; reversed the denial of the City's motion for summary judgment as to the state common-law claims alleged against it; affirmed the denial of Officer Gottlieb and Himan's motions to dismiss the state common-law malicious prosecution claims alleged against them; reversed the denial of the officers' motions to dismiss all other state common-law claims; dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction the City's appeal of the state constitutional claims alleged against it; and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "Evans v. Chalmers" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for possessing firearms while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, contending that section 922(g)(5) violated his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The district court denied the motion, holding that section 922(g)(5) was constitutional. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the scope of the Second Amendment did not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens were not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance. On defendant's Fifth Amendment challenge, the court concluded that prohibiting aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms was rationally related to Congress' legitimate interest in public safety. View "United States v. Carpio-Leon" on Justia Law