Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of murder-for-hire and sentenced to death. Petitioner subsequently sought a certificate of appealability after the district court denied him 28 U.S.C. 2254 relief. Defendant asserted a Wiggins claim for constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. The court believed that there was virtually no chance - let alone a "reasonable possibility" - that petitioner's new habeas evidence would have affected the sentencing outcome. The court concluded that, because there was no debatable issue on prejudice, the court need not reach the question of whether defendant's trial counsel's failure to introduce new habeas evidence at trial amounted to deficient representation. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for a certificate of appealability. View "Ruiz v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to transporting aliens within the United States for private financial gain. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a traffic stop. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, considered in connection with the Brignoni-Ponce factors, the border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's truck. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Garza" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner argued that the district court violated the due process requirements of Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman by refusing to provide constitutionally adequate funding for experts. The court concluded that petitioner's claim failed on the merits because Ford and Panetti merely established that petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to present his own expert testimony before a neutral decisionmaker. The fact that the court did not accede to all of petitioner's demands for additional funding could not be fairly characterized as an abuse of discretion. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in finding petitioner competent to be executed under the Eighth Amendment under Ford and Panetti, and that petitioner was not entitled to relief from his 1995 conviction under the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Indiana v. Edwards because Edwards was not retroactively applicable on collateral review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's second and third federal habeas petitions. View "Panetti v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their conviction for conspiracy to possess illicit substances aboard an aircraft with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 963. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their participation in a plan to transport cocaine from South America to the United Kingdom on board commercial airplanes. The court concluded that Congress intended that the substantive crime underlying the conspiracy charge - possession with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 959(b) - applied extraterritorially; section 963 could be applied extraterritorially; under Blackmer v. United States, application of section 959(b) to Defendant Parker, a U.S. citizen, did not violate the Due Process Clause; extraterritorial application of section 959(b)(2) in this case was permissible as implementing Congress' treaty-making power under the Necessary and Proper Clause; and the recital of facts and the elements of conspiracy to commit the relevant offense was sufficient to enable defendants to prepare their defenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lawrence, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of six counts of aiding and abetting in bank fraud. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his participation in a scheme to fraudulently obtain funds by straw credit card purchases. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the government did not support with sufficient proof the essential financial-institution element of the bank-fraud counts charged in the indictment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (Count 1), attempted murder of officers or employees of the United States (Count 2), and four counts of possession of a weapon in furtherance of a federal crime of violence (Count 3-6). Defendant was arrested before he could carry out a plan to detonate a bomb and shoot service members stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found at the time of his arrest and statements that he made to police where, under all the circumstances, the stop was a proper investigatory detention and was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court also concluded that there was no clear or obvious error in defendant's conviction for multiple firearms offenses where the evidence allowed for the inference of two possessions and purposes for the firearm. Finally, the district court's denial of additional funds for defendant to hire an expert witness did not result in an unfair trial and the court found no error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Abdo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of distribution of a controlled substance. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of a lesser-included-offense instruction and the district court's admission of baggies of cocaine into evidence. The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that simple possession of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844(a) was not a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a lesser-included offense jury instruction. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the baggies into evidence where any prejudice attributable to these baggies was outweighed by their probative ability to link defendant to the DEA agent's purchase. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ambriz" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conditions of supervised release stemming from his conviction for possessing and attempting to possess child pornography. The court concluded that although the district court failed to provide any explanation of reasons supporting defendant's sentence, this error did not constitute reversible plain error because defendant was sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of 30 months and defendant failed to demonstrate how a fuller explanation would have altered his sentence. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court's imposition of the special conditions because he could not demonstrate that any error affected his substantial rights. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not orally pronouncing the challenged standard conditions where the subject conditions were categorized as "standard" in the judgment form and there was record evidence supporting these conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rouland" on Justia Law

Defendant, a psychiatrist, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; six counts of health care fraud relating to six specific patients; six counts of false statements relating to health care matters relating to six specific insurance claims; one count of money laundering; and two counts of engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from unlawful activity. Defendant raise numerous issues on appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that the only errors that the court found - the erroneous application of two sentencing enhancements and the failure to inquire whether either party requested that the jury determine forfeiture - related to sentencing and thus clearly did not require reversal of the convictions. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for drug distribution conspiracy charges. The court held that the district court's failure to dismiss four counts of using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a drug crime was an abuse of discretion necessitating reversal because the Government has never argued that dismissing the telephone counts would have been clearly contrary to manifest public interest and because the district court provided no reasoning justifying its refusal to dismiss the telephone counts. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the conspiracy count. The court reversed the district court's denial of the Government's motion to dismiss the telephone counts and rendered a judgment of dismissal on these counts. View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law