Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, scheduled to be executed, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) regarding whether he was entitled to habeas relief as a result of the United States' binding international treaty obligations - as interpreted in the decision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights dated January 15, 2014 - which entitled him to remain alive to secure his access to the juridical review and reconsideration of his conviction. The court denied petitioner's request for COA and his associated request for stay of execution because he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claim. View "Tamayo v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Petitioner, scheduled to be executed, appealed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. Petitioner had filed successive habeas petitions alleging, among other things, that he did not receive a fair trial in light of newly discovered evidence and that his sentence was illegal and unconstitutional based on his alleged mental retardation. The petitions were denied and then petitioner filed the instant action seeking a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to set aside. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over the Rule 60(b) motion. On the merits, the court concluded that, following Supreme Court precedent, a change in decisional law did not constitute the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to support Rule 60(b) relief; and petitioner's claim was not brought within a "reasonable time." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, granted petitioner's motion for informa pauperis on appeal, and denied the stay of execution. View "Tamayo v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence following the revocation of a prior probation sentence. The court concluded that the sentencing court committed clear error by violating Tapia v. United States where the sentencing court explicitly indicated that the sentence was imposed for the purpose of resolving defendant's untreated drug problem. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Wooley" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of making false statements regarding a credit application, appealed his sentence and order of restitution. Defendant forged the signatures of borrowers on an application for modification to a loan related to a certain property. Because the district court neither made factual findings concerning defendant's conduct nor explained which statutes defendant violated, the court was unable to determine whether defendant's dealings with the home buyers and sellers were criminal. The district court made no findings of fact as to whether defendant's dealings with the home buyers and sellers were part of the same common scheme or whether his criminal acts must have actually caused these losses. Further, the district court erred by awarding restitution based on relevant conduct that went beyond defendant's offense of conviction. An award of restitution based on losses not resulting from the offense of conviction is an error that is clear and obvious. In this instance, the error resulted in an award of more than half a million dollars against defendant. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's sentence and restitution award and remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Benns" on Justia Law

Defendants Simpson and Shafer appealed their sentences and convictions for participation in a wire and mail fraud conspiracy in the telecommunications industry. The court affirmed Simpsons' convictions for conspiracy, aiding and abetting the transmission of spam, and obstruction of justice; reversed Simpson's conviction for false registration of a domain name where there was no evidence showing that camophone.com was used in the course of the conspiracy; vacated and remanded Simpson's sentence; and affirmed Shafer's conviction and sentence for conspiracy. View "United States v. Simpson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), a program administered by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), that grants inmates certain privileges if they participate in the program by paying off court-ordered financial obligations. Petitioner argued that his placement into IFRP "refuse" status violated his First Amendment rights because he could not make the minimum payment under the IFRP and pursue his various claims and appeals in the judicial system. The court concluded that this argument failed because petitioner could not demonstrate an actual injury. Because the IFRP was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, it does not violate petitioner's equal protection rights. Finally, the court found that the imposition of the "refuse" conditions in 28 C.F.R. 545.11(d) did not violate an inmate's liberty interests under the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. View "Driggers v. Cruz, et al." on Justia Law

The United States appealed a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal following defendant's conviction for knowing possession of child pornography. The court reversed, concluding that, after reviewing the record under the applicable standard, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was in knowing possession of child pornography at the time the files at issue were downloaded. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for offenses stemming from their involvement in a mortgage fraud scheme. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants; the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over Tori Aldridge's wire fraud counts and her contention that venue was improper was waived; the admission of certain files at issue were harmless error in light of the other evidence in the record of the fraud; there was no plain error in the prosecutor's use of a dormant guarantee file and the prosecutor's misstatement regarding disbursement of loan proceeds; and the court rejected defendants' remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Isgar" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to receipt of child pornography. Because defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, he was bound by the obligations of the plea agreement; defendant's fifteen-year mandatory minimum claim fell within the waiver provision and was waived on appeal; and defendant's conditions-of-supervised-release arguments fell within the appeal waiver and were waived on appeal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Higgins" on Justia Law

Defendants Arthur and Andre appealed their convictions for drug and firearm offenses. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Arthur's and Andre's convictions for conspiracy; the evidence was sufficient to support the possession convictions; the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c); the district court did not plainly err in failing to give a jury instruction to disregard the offenses Arthur committed as a minor; the calculation of Arthur's Guidelines range was not erroneous; Arthur's and Andre's sentences were substantively reasonable; the district court did not plainly err in admitting the bulk of an ATF agent's testimony; and Andre's allegation of a Fourth Amendment violation was unreviewable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harris, et al." on Justia Law