Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff challenged the court's denial of his attempt to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, contending that his prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim could not count as strikes under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), because the dismissals occurred at summary judgment. The court held that the fact that an action was dismissed for these reasons, and not the case's procedural posture at dismissal, determined whether the dismissal constituted a strike under Section 1915(g). Therefore, because defendant had more than three prior cases dismissed, the court denied his motion for reconsideration. View "Blakely v. Wards" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of federal program bribery and extortion under color of official night. The convictions arose from charges that, while a state legislator, defendant secured state funding for a public university in exchange for employment by the university. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict defendant; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury as to a gratuity; and the district court did not plainly err in its application of a fourteen-level sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Defendants Jacqueline, Tamatha, and Jimmy Hilton challenged their convictions on charges involving a scheme to defraud the Woodsmiths Company. The charges in this case arose from a two-year scheme in which defendants defrauded the company by stealing and cashing numerous checks written to the company by its customers. At issue was whether the statutes prohibiting identity theft and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(7) and 1028A, under which Jimmy and Jacqueline were convicted, encompassed the theft of the identity of a corporation. The court held that these statutes were fairly ambiguous regarding whether corporate victims were within the class of protected victims and vacated the conviction of Jimmy and Jacqueline on these counts. The court concluded that defendants' other arguments were without merit and therefore affirmed Tamatha's convictions, affirmed the remaining convictions of Jacqueline and Jimmy, but vacated the sentences imposed and remand those convictions for resentencing. View "United States v. Hilton, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry by an aggravated felon. At issue was whether the district court properly counted defendant's prior conviction for a violation of California Penal Code 422(a) as a crime of violence, justifying a sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 422(a) prohibited, as a felony, willfully threatening to commit a crime that would result in death or great bodily injury. The court held that the predicate state statute was not, categorically, a crime of violence where section 422(a) did not contain an element requiring the use or threatened use of physical force. Therefore, defendant's sentencing enhancement could not stand. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Torres-Miguel" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of violating a provision of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. 2156, based on his involvement in dogfighting activity. On appeal, defendant challenged his 60-month sentence. The court concluded that the district court's exercise of its sentencing discretion was not unreasonable where the district court conducted a thorough individualized assessment of defendant and his offense conduct in light of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Hargrove" on Justia Law

Respondent finished serving his prison sentence for child molestation in 2008, but has remained incarcerated while the government sought to have him declared a "sexually dangerous person" pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. 4248. The government appealed the judgment of the district court that respondent be freed from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and granted supervised release. The court concluded that, contrary to the district court's legal determination and as established by the evidence, respondent indeed suffered from a qualifying mental impairment. The court nevertheless affirmed the judgment, discerning no clear error in the district court's alternative rationale that the government fell short of carrying its burden to demonstrate a relative likelihood that respondent would reoffend. View "United States v. Caporale" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for a child pornography offense. The court held that law enforcement officers had probable cause to enter into the property at issue and their subsequent inquiries regarding laptop computers were also lawful and proper. Therefore, the court rejected defendant's contention of a Fourth Amendment violation. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to dismiss and striking the lesser-included offense of possession of child pornography. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

After counsel for defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence as a sanction for the government's alleged discovery violation, the district court denied the motion at a hearing that defendant did not attend and in which he did not otherwise participate. Defendant argued on appeal that he should have been present. Because the plain text of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 did not require a defendant to be present at a hearing on such a motion, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Gonzales-Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of cocaine and subsequently pled guilty to drug charges. Defendant was driving a rental car with a passenger in Virginia when police pulled him over for speeding. Based on the passenger's apparent nervousness and the presence of four cellular phones in the center console, and on defendant's and the passenger's conflicting explanations of their travels, the officer called a drug-detection dog. The dog arrived 13 minutes after the initiation of the traffic stop and a resulting search revealed 830.6 grams of cocaine. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion and the delay and search of the vehicle were reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vaughan" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy to commit smuggling for his role as the mastermind of a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud the Department of Defense (DOD). The crux of defendant's scheme involved the knowing supply of defective and nonconforming spare parts for use in U.S. military aircraft, vehicles, and weapons systems. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence on a variety of grounds. The court found his arguments without merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Day, Jr." on Justia Law