Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted for conspiracy involving, inter alia, theft of Postal Service mail from a "collection box." Defendant was involved in a conspiracy to steal mail, harvest identifying information, and cash forged paychecks. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculating of her offense level. The court held that Application Note 4(C)(ii)(I) to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 permitted the district court to presume that there was at least 50 victims when calculating an offense level in a case that involved one or more Postal Service receptacles: absent probative evidence that the actual number of victims exceeded 50, however, the district court could not presume more than 50, irrespective of the number of such receptacles that were involved. In this instance, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing where defendant should have received only the 4-level U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) enhancement applicable to cases involving at least 50 victims but not 250 or more. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his federal habeas petition. Petitioner alleged that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose an alleged jailhouse confession to the murder by Laura Hall. The court concluded that it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that petitioner's counsel would not have offered an alternate-perpetrator defense at trial rather than seeking conviction on a lesser offense. Given the jailhouse context of Hall's confession and its lack of corroboration and detail, the state court reasonably could have concluded that Hall's statement could not overcome the overwhelming problems with an alternate-perpetrator theory. Accordingly, fairminded jurists could conclude that Hall's confession was immaterial within the meaning of Brady and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Pitonyak v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former mayor of New Roads, Louisiana, appealed his conviction and sentence for corruption-related offenses. Defendant's convictions stemmed from the use of his position as Mayor to promote the Cifer 5000, a waste container cleaning system business, in the city and elsewhere in exchange for cash and other things of value. The court affirmed the district court's decision not to give an entrapment instruction because defendant made no plausible showing of lack of predisposition. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its evidentiary findings. In regards to the district court's valuation of defendant's bribery activity, because the court concluded that a loss calculation for the EPA letter that defendant wrote was appropriate on remand, and because the district court's reasoning with regard to the private investor letter relied in part on defendant's general expectation to generate "a large sum of money," the court deemed that closer scrutiny was advisable regarding the valuation of the private investor letter. However, the record supported the district court's determination that defendant expected to receive at least $250,000 in his role in the kickback scheme. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Nelson, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of conspiracy and drug offenses, as well as unlawful use of communications facilities. Defendant argued that the district court plainly erred by allowing two alternative jurors to take part in the jury deliberations. The court dismissed the appeal because defendant waived his right to appeal in a sentencing agreement. View "United States v. Walter" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction restraining state officials from conducting executions with pentobarbital procured from compounding pharmacies. The court concluded that there was no evidence in the record that the drug was very likely to cause needless suffering. Because plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, the court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief without examining the other prongs. View "Whitaker, et al. v. Livingston, et al." on Justia Law

Abilene police were investigating Alcantar for cocaine dealing. During a traffic stop, officers found cocaine. A subsequent search of his residence revealed drug paraphernalia, drug-manufacturing materials, and a dismantled 12-gauge shotgun in Alcantar’s bedroom. He was charged by the state with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Alcantar had a previous conviction for felony aggravated assault of a police officer. Alcantar was indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and for possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) and 5871. He challenged section 922(g)(1) as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and pleaded guilty to the firearms charge. The pre-sentence report recommended a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for use or possession of a firearm in connection with another felony: the state charge of possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. Alcantar argued that despite the proximity of the firearm to the drug paraphernalia, its dissembled state, his lack of knowledge regarding assembly, and the absence of ammunition rendered the firearm useless in facilitating another offense. An ATF agent estimated it could take 10 to 30 seconds to assemble the three pieces even without instructions. The district court overruled Alcantar’s objection and imposed a sentence of 63 months. The Fifth Circuit affirmed both the refusal to dismiss the indictment and the sentence. View "United States v. Alcantar" on Justia Law

Chandler was a police officer when he joined “Dreamboard,” an online bulletin board which conditioned membership on sharing child pornography. He posted at least 117 images, most of which were children, ages eight to 14 years, posing or engaging in sexual acts with adults. Charged with: engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(g); conspiring to advertise the distribution of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(d)(1), (e), and conspiring to distribute child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1), Chandler pleaded guilty to engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, and the other counts were dismissed. The district court calculated Chandler’s Guidelines range as 240-293 months. In the PSR, the probation officer stated that there were no factors warranting a departure or variance. The district court rejected Chandler’s motion for downward departure and imposed a sentence of 420 months of imprisonment, noting Chandler’s abuse of his public office as a law enforcement officer, his use of other people’s internet connections to attempt to hide his participation in the scheme, and his frequent posts. The Fifth Circuit remanded, holding that Chandler’s position as a police officer did not justify the increased sentence because there was no evidence that he used his position to facilitate the offense. View "United States v. Chandler" on Justia Law

Defendants Powell and Akin appealed their conviction and sentence on charges of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendants' respective motions to suppress; the evidence was legally sufficient to support Akin's conviction; while the statements admitted in evidence against Powell did not violate the Confrontation Clause under the Bruton doctrine, the prosecutor's use of these statements for cross examination purposes was in error; the prosecutor's statements, though legally inexcusable, were harmless in light of the other evidence presented at trial; the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 to Powell's sentence; and Powell's sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Powell, et al." on Justia Law

The DOJ filed suit against the City in order to remedy the patterns or practices identified in an investigation of conduct by the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) that subjected individuals to excessive force, unlawful searches and seizures, and discriminatory policing practices. On the same day the complaint was filed, the City and the DOJ agreed to a proposed consent decree outlining reform measures for the NOPD. On appeal, the City challenged the district court's orders entering judgment on the consent decree and denying the City's motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b). The court concluded that the City consented to both consent decrees at issue; the City could afford to fund both consent decrees; the secondary employment provisions of the NOPD consent decree did not violate federal or state law; the investigations and negotiations with the DOJ were not tainted by the actions of DOJ employees; and procedural deficiencies did not taint the district court's approval process and further erode the City's consent. Accordingly, the court rejected the City's contentions and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the DHS's Final Administrative Removal Order issued under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 238(b), 8 U.S.C. 1228(b). The court concluded that petitioner did not fail to exhaust his administrative remedies, and even without the bar of exhaustion, there was still the impediment that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who was removable by reason of having committed an aggravated felony. The court denied the petition because petitioner was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and, therefore, he was properly subjected to the expedited administrative removal process. View "Valdiviez-Hernandez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law