Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, who is deaf and communicates through sign language, appealed the district court's order of civil commitment following an evidentiary hearing under 18 U.S.C. 4248. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in denying defendant's request for consecutive interpretation; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant is a "sexually dangerous person;" and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's equal protection and due process claims in light of United States v. Timms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Heyer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order of restitution as part of his sentence for obstructing federal bankruptcy proceedings. Defendant contended that the purported victims suffered losses when he caused them to take out significant loans for the benefit of his church - conduct with which he was not charged or convicted. At issue was whether the purported victims were victims "of the offense" for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 3563(b). The court concluded that the statute required the purported victims to be victims only of the offense of conviction; the Government failed to demonstrate that the purported victims' losses were "caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of" defendant's offense of conviction - obstruction of federal bankruptcy proceedings; and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in awarding restitution to the purported victims, as the award was contrary to the legal principles set out in the court's precedent. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the traffic stop at issue was reasonable in scope and duration and that defendant was lawfully seized for a traffic violation when the dog sniff occurred. The court also concluded that the district court correctly held that the dog was sufficiently reliable and that his positive alert provided probable cause for the search of defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions, including conspiracy and murder, arguing that the district court erred by not affording him the assistance of two attorneys under the terms of 18 U.S.C. 3005. Because the right to additional counsel under section 3005 was solely statutory, the court held that the district court was not required to call it to the attention of defendant. Therefore, the district court did not err, much less plainly err. In the alternative, the district court did not plainly err by excluding the testimony of a cooperating witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Shepperson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of three counts arising from the armed robbery of a jewelry store. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant during a search of his residence. Defendant also argued that the testimony about out-of-court statements made by a co-conspirator was erroneously admitted. In this instance, the officers were lawfully in the residence pursuant to a search warrant and they were justified in opening a retail bag on top of the dresser in defendant's bedroom to determine whether its contents matched any of the items they were authorized by the warrant to seize. Accordingly, the seizure of the Louis Vuitton belt receipt did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment right. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion under the Federal Rules in admitting the testimony at issue and the introduction of the out-of-court statements did not violate defendant's constitutional right to confront opposing witnesses where the statements were nontestimonial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Dargan, Jr." on Justia Law

The district court found that respondent was a "sexually dangerous person" under the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. 4248, and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General. Respondent appealed. The court concluded that there was no due process violation in this case where, among other things, respondent was allowed pretrial access to an expert but respondent declined to seek such assistance. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting state police reports concerning prior arrests. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Wood" on Justia Law

Defendant, a highway patrolman, appealed his sentence after being convicted of a conspiracy involving the large-scale cultivation of marijuana. Under the court's deferential standard of review, the evidence in the record was sufficient to support the district court's conclusion that defendant was a manager or supervisor of at least one other person. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b) was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Steffen" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a drug offense and subsequently appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Although a district court could not impose a revocation sentence based predominately on the seriousness of the releasee's violation or the need for the sentence to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment, the court concluded that mere reference to such considerations did not render a revocation sentence procedurally unreasonable when those factors were relevant to, and considered in conjunction with, the enumerated 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; because the district court appropriately focused its discussion on the Chapter Seven policy statements in the federal Guidelines manual and based defendant's revocation sentence on factors listed in section 3583(e), the court discerned no error, much less plain error, in the district court's consideration of related factors; and, assuming arguendo, defendant was able to demonstrate that the district court committed plain error, defendant was unable to show that the error affected his substantial rights by influencing the outcome of the revocation hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Webb, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation by an aggravated felon. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a sixteen level enhancement based on defendant's prior North Carolina conviction for taking indecent liberties with a minor. The court held that a conviction for taking indecent liberties with a minor qualified categorically as sexual abuse of a minor under United States v. Diaz-Ibarra and was therefore a crime of violence within the meaning of the reentry Guidelines and its Commentary, U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. n. 1(B)(iii). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Perez-Perez" on Justia Law

John and Jane Doe appealed the district court's order holding them in civil contempt for refusing to comply with grand jury subpoenas. The Does are the targets of a grand jury investigation in the district court seeking to determine whether they used secret Swiss bank accounts to conceal assets and income from the IRS and the Treasury Department. Because the court found that the records at issue met all the requirements of the required records doctrine, the Fifth Amendment privilege was inapplicable and the Does could not invoke it to shield themselves from the subpoenas' commands. Because the Does' Fifth Amendment privilege was not implicated, the court need not address their request for immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Under Seal" on Justia Law