Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's determination that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. In 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to delivering cocaine in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(1). Defendant's conviction under the Florida statue did not require that he knew that the substance at issue was a controlled substance whereas a conviction under the federal statute did. Therefore, the state offense was not analogous to the federal offense. Accordingly, the court held that the Florida offense was not categorically an aggravated felony and granted the petition for review, vacating the order and remanding for further proceedings. View "Sarmientos v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 24 months imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release for violating conditions of an earlier sentence of supervised release. Defendant argued that the district court improperly considered his rehabilitative needs in sentencing him. The court concluded that, in this case, although the district court certainly took rehabilitation into account, it was at most a secondary concern or additional justification for the sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in imposing defendant's sentence and the court affirmed. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of illegal reentry. The district court applied a 16-level enhancement based on its determination that defendant had committed a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant acknowledged that he was convicted under section 3-307(a)(3) of Maryland's criminal code. The court concluded that a violation of section 307(a)(3) constituted sexual abuse of a minor under the plain-meaning approach and was a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Chacon" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after deportation. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court held that the issue was encompassed within defendant's appeal waiver. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal because defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged a new method the Attorney General and the Board used to determine that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for the purposes of admissibility under section 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1100 et seq. The court agreed with four of its sister circuits and concluded that the "convicted of" clause of section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) was not ambiguous. The court rejected the Attorney General's argument that "convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude" was ambiguous and concluded that Congress had spoken directly to the issue. Consequently, the court found no analogous permission to abandon the categorical approach and look beyond the conviction record. In this instance, the court found that the BIA looked beyond the conviction record to conclude that petitioner had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the court's precedent did not permit such an inquiry, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva-Trevino v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of one firearm and with possessing and bartering one stolen firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence on the grounds that the district court erroneously calculated his base offense level. The court held that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant possessed or unlawfully sought to obtain between eight and twenty-four firearms under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hagman, III" on Justia Law

Defendant, pro se, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, arguing that the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911 et seq., compelled his speech in violation of the First Amendment. Congress enacted SORNA as a means to protect the public from sex offenders by providing a uniform mechanism to identify those convicted of certain crimes. The court concluded that relevant Supreme Court precedent, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wooley v. Maynard, did not require the court to conclude that the government had unlawfully compelled defendant's speech. The court concluded that the Constitution did not provide defendant with a right to keep his registry information private. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court denied defendant's motion for appointment of counsel. View "United States v. Arnold" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for producing, possessing, and distributing child pornography. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant of Accurate Roofing; affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant of defendant's residence; but reversed and remanded for resentencing where the district court did not appreciate its authority to consider evidence of defendant's cooperation under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the automotive magazines that were confiscated from him while he was an inmate participating in the TDCJ Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) violated his constitutional rights. SOTP 02.06 prohibited participants in the program from having certain publications. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief were moot because TDCJ has replaced SOTP 02.06 with a new version of the rule that corrected the deficiencies that plaintiff complained of and that plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages were precluded because he did not suffer injury in connection with his constitutional claims. View "Stauffer v. Gearhart, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction under 18 U.S.C. 2332a(a)(2). The court rejected defendant's argument that his motion to suppress evidence gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801, 1805(a), 1824(a), was improperly denied. Based on the court's own thorough review of the classified materials at issue in camera, the court concluded that defendant's inference that the government likely never made the requisite showing that the searches were validly authorized under section 1805 and 1824 was incorrect. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction regarding the crime of attempt. Finally, defendant's sentence was substantively and procedurally reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Aldawsari" on Justia Law