Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of murder while committing a robbery, appealed the district court's denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment and motion for stay of execution. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate circumstances that were sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief from final judgment under Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion and, consequently, denied his stay of execution. View "Diaz v. Stephens, et al." on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry following removal, the district court applied an eight-level enhancement based on a prior conviction for an aggravated felon, a New York state misdemeanor conviction for third-degree sexual abuse of a fifteen-year-old. The court rejected defendant's arguments that his misdemeanor conviction could not be considered an aggravated felony where the court applied the modified categorical approach to determine that defendant's conviction satisfied the generic offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to file a U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 motion for downward departure based on substantial assistance. The court concluded that the Government retained its discretion to determine whether to file a section 5K1.1 motion and defendant failed to show that the Government committed error, much less plain error, in its refusal to file the motion. The court also concluded that a memorandum recently issued by the Attorney General did not afford defendant sentencing relief where, even assuming that defendant met the requirements contained in the memorandum, the memorandum was issued after defendant was charged and convicted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). At issue on appeal was whether a violation of Texas Penal Code 22.01 (reckless assault) constituted a violent felony as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). The court concluded that a violation of section 22.01 falls squarely within the parameters of the criminal conduct contemplated in Begay v. United States, which aimed to limit the application of the ACCA to crimes that involved conduct that was purposeful, violent and aggressive in nature. Reckless assault under section 22.01 required proof that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk and in doing so, caused bodily injury to another. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence of 188 months' imprisonment. View "United States v. Espinoza" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly distributing at least 50 grams of cocaine base. The court concluded that the district court was incorrect in stating that the testimony regarding the prior possession and concomitant statement were intrinsic evidence. The court concluded, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the prejudicial effect of such evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The court further concluded that there was no error in the procedure followed by the district court with respect to defendant's brother's testimony and defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kinchen" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). On appeal, he challenged the district court's imposition of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) based on his prior SNAP violation. In light of United States v. Garcia, the court concluded that the district court correctly found that defendant's prior violation of SNAP and his acknowledgement of the violation satisfied the requirement that there be "interaction" between the agency and the defendant. The July 9 letter at issue found that defendant was responsible for violating food stamp regulations on four occasions by accepting benefits in exchange for ineligible merchandise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court did not err in applying section 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) to enhance defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Nash" on Justia Law

The State appealed a preliminary injunction and stay of execution granted to a death-row inmate who was convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepson. The court concluded that there was no violation of the Due Process Clause from the uncertainty that Louisiana has imposed on the inmate by withholding the details of its execution protocol. The district court abused its discretion by granting the inmate's untimely motion for a stay. Even assuming arguendo that the motion was timely, there was no equitable basis for further delay because the inmate was not entitled to injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court reversed the preliminary injunction and stay of execution. View "Sepulvado v. Jindal" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of health-care fraud in connection with his durable medical equipment (DME) business. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and the district court's order of restitution. The court concluded that, in light of all the evidence, there was no meaningful probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant, even if it had heard his mother and another unidentified individual testify that defendant was law-abiding. Accordingly, such error was harmless and the court affirmed defendant's conviction. The court also concluded that, by calculating restitution on the basis of the presentence investigation report's exaggerated "ceiling," the district court indisputably awarded restitution for claims outside the scope of the charged conspiracy. Because doing so was plain error, the court vacated the restitution award and remanded for recalculation. View "United States v. De Leon, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, a former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). On appeal, defendant challenged her sentence and conviction, which stemmed from defendant's use of her political influence and power to further the objectives of a criminal enterprise. The court concluded that the voir dire in this case was sufficient and rejected defendant's challenges to the Government's use of peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky; there was no merit to defendant's assertion that she would be unable to raise a Double Jeopardy argument were she ever prosecuted a second time for conspiracy to violate RICO predicated on the same conduct alleged in the indictment; and the district court plainly erred in calculating the sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment based on money laundering instead of mail fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convict, but vacated the sentence, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Pratt" on Justia Law

Defendant and his co-conspirators were indicted for, inter alia, conspiring to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence gathered pursuant to the wiretaps on Target Telephones 3 and 4. The court found that the district court did not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction and such non-compliance implicated a core concern of the statute and required suppression of the evidence obtained from the wiretap. The court also found that the government failed to comply with minimization protocols when monitoring defendant's May 16, 2009 phone call. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion and remanded for further proceedings View "United States v. North" on Justia Law