Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Respondent, civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person, challenged the denial of the motions to extend and reopen the discovery period, motions to withdraw as counsel, and motions to appoint a second expert. The court concluded that, in proceedings that could result in the lifelong incarceration of respondent who has already served his full sentence, respondent was forced to be represented by an attorney asserting multiple conflicts of interest with whom he had not prepared for trial because of their inability to communicate. The district court abused its discretion in requiring counsel to continue representing respondent and the error was not harmless. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment as to the motions to withdraw and remanded for the district court to consider these motions after engaging in the appropriate inquiry regarding the extent of counsel's conflicts. View "United States v. Blackledge" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a prohibited object by a federal inmate. Defendant received a jury trial in which the jury made two specific factual findings but never returned a guilty verdict. The court vacated defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded, concluding that the district court violated defendant's right to have a jury determine his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Ramirez-Castillo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing two firearms while being an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). Defendant argued that section 922(g)(3) infringed his right to bear arms, in violation of the Second Amendment. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, agreeing that the government adequately demonstrated a reasonable fit between its important interest in protecting the community from gun violence and section 922(g)(3), which disarms unlawful drug users and addicts. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former officer of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), was convicted of four offenses related to his involvement in a kickback scheme to funnel wrecked automobiles to a Baltimore auto repair shop in exchange for monetary payments. The court affirmed defendant's convictions on three Hobbs Act extortion counts, 18 U.S.C. 1951, plus a charge of conspiracy to commit such extortion, 18 U.S.C. 371. The court vacated the district court's award of restitution to Erie Insurance because Erie was not a "victim" under the Victim Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663. View "United States v. Ocasio" on Justia Law

Defendant Erasto appealed his sentence of 180 months' imprisonment and Defendant Juarez-Gomez appealed two of the six counts he was convicted of and the application of several sentencing enhancements. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Juarez-Gomez's conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine and aiding and abetting the same; the court affirmed the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 3B1.4, the use of a minor enhancement; affirmed the district court's imposition of an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon for Erasto; affirmed the district court's imposition of the leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) for Juarez-Gomez; and therefore, affirmed the judgments of the district court. View "United States v. Gomez-Jimenez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing 300 to 600 images of child pornography, including images and videos of prepubescent minors. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for distribution of child pornography. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. McVey" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and death sentence stemming from his murder of two brothers. The court concluded that venue for the 18 U.S.C. 924(c) counts was appropriate in the Western District of North Carolina; the court rejected defendant's contention that his convictions on Counts 22 and 24 for murder in aid of racketeering punished conduct that "is a quintessential, noneconomic, local activity that lies beyond Congress's authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause;" defendant's convictions on Counts 22 and 25 do not exceed the government's Commerce Clause authority; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse two jurors; and the court rejected defendant's numerous remaining challenges. After careful consideration of each of defendant's arguments, as well as the record in this case, the court concluded that defendant had a fair trial and that the death penalty was justified by the jury's factual findings and by law and was not imposed under the improper influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Umana" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. The court concluded that defendant failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that he could not take any discovery materials to the detention center where he was being held and in providing him with an alternative setup to review discovery in a courthouse lockup area; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the wiretap evidence where the government had submitted sufficient facts to show the need for wiretaps; and the district court did not plainly err in qualifying two officers as expert witnesses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Galloway" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of production, possession, and transportation of child pornography, in connection with his sexual molestation of a four-year-old boy. On appeal, defendant challenged the imposition of a 120-year sentence, arguing that the prison sentence was disproportionate to his crimes and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court rejected defendant's constitutional challenges and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence designed to protect the public and to address the seriousness of defendant's crimes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Cobler" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion to vacate his sentence. The court concluded that petitioner could use a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to challenge a sentence that was based on the career offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines when subsequent case law revealed the enhancement to be inapplicable to him. The court held that equitable tolling applied to petitioner's claim and the erroneous application of the career offender enhancement amounted to a fundamental miscarriage of justice that can be corrected on collateral review. Accordingly, the court granted a certificate of appealability, vacated petitioner's sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "Whiteside v. United States" on Justia Law