Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court erred by increasing defendant's sentence after determining that his prior conviction for fourth-degree burglary constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2). Therefore, the court vacated defendant's 77-month sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court agreed with the district court's decision to use defendant's general court-martial convictions to classify him as an armed career criminal and rejected defendant's argument which primarily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Small v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Grant" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that an eyewitness's in-court identification violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief because the North Carolina state court's rejection of petitioner's claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law, as determined by the Supreme Court. The court held that the procedures leading up to the eyewitness's in-court identification were not unnecessarily suggestive and that, even if they were, they did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court also denied petitioner's motion for appointment of qualified and independent counsel under Martinez v. Ryan and Juniper v. Davis. View "Fowler v. Lassiter" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges stemming from his distribution of substances ("bath salts") that the government alleged were prohibited by the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986, 21 U.S.C. 802(32)(A), 813. The court rejected defendant's argument that the Act is unconstitutional because he lacked notice that the distribution of controlled substance analogues is prohibited under federal law; rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's rulings made during trial; and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. McFadden" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release. The district court found that defendant had violated his supervised release by, among other things, possessing marijuana. The district court's finding relied in part on a laboratory report prepared by a forensic examiner who did not testify at the hearing. The court vacated the sentence and remanded, holding that the district court erred by denying defendant a chance to cross-examine the forensic examiner. View "United States v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Respondent appealed the district court's order concluding that he was a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General. The court concluded that the procedure set forth in 18 U.S.C. 4248(a) for initiating proceedings for the civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person supplants the summons requirement set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That the government has physical custody over the respondent in section 4248 civil commitment proceedings obviates the need for a summons. The court concluded that the government easily presented sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that, by clear and convincing evidence, respondent, as a result of his pedophilia, would have serious difficulty in refraining from child molestation if released. The court rejected respondent's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. De La Luz Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions on five counts of narcotics trafficking. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings as viewed in their totality. The court held that safeguards adopted by the district court to avoid the substantial risk of prejudice inhering in the jury's receipt of the decoding expert's testimony was inadequate. Neither the district court's cautionary instructions to the jury nor its sporadic sustaining of some of counsel's objections adequately mitigated the risk of substantial prejudice. Further, the errors were not harmless. Although the court discerned no reversible error in the district court's denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, the court held that the errors in the decoding expert's testimony so infected the entire trial that the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to three counts arising from his fraudulent activity in connection with a client's initial public offering. Defendant sought habeas relief, contending that, in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, the conduct for which he was convicted is no longer criminal. The court found Janus inapplicable outside the context of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), implied private right of action. Therefore, Janus does not affect defendant's criminal convictions. Because defendant's convictions are proper under current law, the court concluded that his section 2241 petition necessarily failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of his petition. View "Prousalis, Jr. v. Moore" on Justia Law

Movant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances and sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without parole. He was 17 years old when the conspiracy began and the conspiracy continued until he had turned 18. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Alabama, movant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) seeking authorization to file a successive section 2255 motion. The court denied the motion, concluding that, even assuming that movant qualified as a juvenile offender, his proposed motion would necessarily rely on a right that became available to him in 2010 with the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida, which held that sentencing a juvenile who did not commit a homicide to life imprisonment without parole violated the Eighth Amendment, and not on Miller, which extended the Graham rule to prohibit mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of committing homicide. Because Graham was decided more than one year before movant filed his section 2255(h) motion, the successive section 2255 motion he sought leave to file would be barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3). View "In re: Tadd Vassell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus against the State. Immediately after the jury returned its sentencing recommendation, petitioner alleged to the state trial judge that one of the jurors discussed the death penalty with her pastor the previous day. The court concluded that the state post-conviction court's failure to apply a presumption of prejudice and failure to investigate petitioner's juror misconduct claim, which was based on an external influence on the jury, was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the state court's failures had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury's verdict. View "Barnes v. Joyner" on Justia Law