Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, sentenced to death for a murder during the course of a robbery, challenged his capital sentence, claiming that he was exempt from execution under Roper v. Simmons. The court held that reasonable jurists would not find debatable the district court's conclusion that the state habeas court adjudication was an adjudication on the merits that warranted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 254(d), deference. The court also held that no reasonable jurist would find debatable that the district court's decision that petitioner failed to show that the state habeas process resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability. View "Tercero v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of illegal reentry subsequent to removal after conviction of an aggravated felony. The court concluded that defendant had not shown that the district court abused its discretion in its use of the Allen charge; defendant had not met his burden of showing that the Doyle violations the court identified rose to the level of error that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; because the district court heard and considered the investigator's testimony about the relevant portions of the affidavit, including that claim that the companions were forced to cross the border, any error in failing to admit the affidavit was harmless; and because the court affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence, it did not need to address defendant's argument that the court should vacate the revocation of his prior term of supervised release. View "United States v. Andaverde-Tinoco" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to knowing unlawful presence in the United States and knowing possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's classification of his 2009 conviction of Residential Burglary under Washington state law as a crime of violence for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The court concluded that the Residential Burglary offense constituted the enumerated generic crime of burglary of a dwelling, and thus the district court correctly classified defendant's prior conviction as a crime of violence for the purposes of section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Guerrero-Navarro" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry, arguing that the district court's admission of his grandmother's affidavit violated his Confrontation Clause rights. Based on the court's review of the record, the court concluded that the government failed to establish that the affidavit was not created for the primary purpose of providing evidence for a later criminal trial. Because the government has not met its burden to prove that the affidavit was nontestimonial, the district court erred in admitting the affidavit. Because the district court's error was not harmless, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Duron-Caldera" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions on numerous counts related to their involvement in schemes to commit health care fraud, receive or pay healthcare kickbacks, and/or make false statements for use in determining rights for benefit and payment by Medicare. The district court's oral pronouncement of Defendant Njoku's sentence on Count 2 was 60 months' imprisonment but the written judgment provided for a sentence of 63 months. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court to amend Njoku's written judgment to conform to her oral sentence. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Njoku, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering three people and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 application. At issue was whether petitioner was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance at trial because counsel allegedly failed to investigate potential mitigating evidence. Even assuming that the state habeas court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington's deficiency prong, the court was not persuaded that the state habeas court unreasonably applied the prejudice prong. The court concluded the state habeas court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law and that the state habeas court's decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Charles v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for violations of federal drug and gun laws. The court rejected defendant's Batson challenge, concluding that, for Juror 23 and 37, the district court found the prosecutor's demeanor-based justification credible. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that defendant was a voluntary participant in a drug conspiracy and that defendant possessed firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the district court subsequently vacated the jury verdict and granted a new trial, while denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds. In consolidated appeals, the government challenged the grant of a new trial and defendant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court concluded that there was no error in the direct examination of a deputy marshall. Even if there was error, there was no prejudice. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no basis in which to set aside a jury verdict. Because the district court erred in ordering a new trial, the court reversed that order and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict and to proceed with sentencing. The court dismissed defendant's appeal as moot. View "United States v. Poole" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a health care fraud conspiracy. The court affirmed defendant St. Junius's conviction and sentence; affirmed defendant Ramos's conviction and sentence; affirmed defendant Spicer's conviction and sentence; but vacated Spicer's terms of supervised release and remanded for resentencing where the Government conceded that the district court's award of restitution exceeded the losses derived from the conduct for which Spicer was convicted. If the district court imposes restitution, it should be limited to the losses suffered as a result of the crimes for which Spicer was convicted. View "United States v. St. Junius, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Henry and Chikenna Jones were convicted of Medicare fraud charges. The government indicted Henry in three separate cases: the Ngari case; the Jones case; and the McKenzie case. Chikenna was indicted in the Jones and McKenzie cases. The court concluded that Henry's prosecution in the McKenzie case did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where the conspiracies in the Ngari and the McKenzie cases were two separate conspiracies. Further, the court concluded that there was no multiplicity violation. In regards to Chikenna, the court concluded that the district court did not violate her constitutional right to choose her retained counsel when it denied her motions for substitution of counsel where the needs of fairness and the demands of the court's calendar weighed against granting the substitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law