Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after the City's police sergeant sexually abused her. Defendants are state officers involved in the investigation and arrest of the sergeant. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim under either her deliberate indifference or bystander liability theory against defendants. Consequently, there was no constitutional violation for which Defendants Hanna and Bullock would need qualified immunity. Finally, the district court correctly denied plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint where amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Whitley v. Hanna, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in various capacities in illegal schemes related to attempts by two housing developers to obtain public financing, zoning clearance, and political support for their rival housing development plans in Dallas. Defendants raised numerous arguments on appeal concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, speedy trial issues, conflicts of interest, jury issues, evidentiary rulings, recusal issues, severance, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing issues. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects. View "United States v. Reagan, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, a licensed physician who operated an in-home physical therapy services provider for Medicare patients (CMPM), appealed her conviction for ten counts of healthcare and Medicare fraud arising out of her operation of CMPM. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the district court properly recognized the independent factual basis that existed to clearly state an offense in the indictment, mooting the need to address defendant's rule of lenity/ambiguity challenge; affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding her license because it was irrelevant, and exclusion of certain articles and Medicare regulation changes because they were not available to defendant to rely on at the time of her fraudulent conduct; the district court did not err by denying defendant her constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of her trial; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences for drug trafficking, money laundering, and conspiracy thereof. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict all of the defendants; the prosecution sufficiently identified Defendant Magana at trial; challenges to the admission or exclusion of evidence were rejected; challenges to jury instructions were rejected; and challenges to various statements made by the prosecutor were rejected. The court concluded, however, that Count 10 charging Defendant Salas and the ML defendants with a conspiracy violating 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) was submitted to the jury without any special interrogatories asking the jury to specify which of the provisions each defendant had conspired to violate and, consequently, the sentences of these defendants should be vacated and remanded for resentencing. The court otherwise affirmed the convictions and sentences in full. View "United States v. Alaniz" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the the district court's reduction of his original sentence from 310 to 286 months under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) after he provided substantial assistance to the government. After determining that the court had jurisdiction of this appeal, the court concluded that the district court provided adequate reasons in ruling on the motion for reduction of defendant's sentence and that defendant failed to identify a single 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factor that the district court should have, but did not, take into account in determining his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lightfoot, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine (PCP) and received a three-year term of supervised release following his 110-month sentence. On appeal, he challenged the district court's 24-month sentence for violating two conditions of his supervised release. The court found no procedural error where the district court was not required to provide defendant with pre-sentencing notice of all points raised in the revocation sentencing colloquy, here especially noting the invalid urine samples. Defendant also did not show that the district court relied on materially erroneous information in pronouncing the sentence. The court also found no substantive error where the district court made clear its belief that, in light of defendant's particular history, only a relatively severe, incarcerative revocation sentence was sufficient punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Warren" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to and possessing with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, defendant argued that had the district court only considered the weight attributable to the actual cocaine, he could not have been found guilty of crimes requiring more than five kilograms. Further, defendant argued that his sentencing analysis would have been different. The court concluded, under Chapman v. United States, that because defendant possessed a mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, the weight of the mixture and not the weight of the pure cocaine, was controlling. The court also concluded that the Sentencing Guidelines specifically provided that the weight of a controlled substance referred to the entire weight of any mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Villarreal" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition. Petitioner claimed that his untimely filing was caused by his attorney who allegedly misrepresented that his state habeas petition had been filed and, when petitioner discovered that it had not been filed, abandoned him. The court granted a certificate of appealability on the equitable tolling issue. The court, however, concluded that petitioner did not pursue his rights with reasonable diligence. Although petitioner demonstrated reasonable diligence during the latter half of the limitation period, it was not enough to make up for his earlier and subsequent delay. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Palacios v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their sentences and convictions for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that defendants conspired to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine; but, because drug quantity was not a an essential element of a conspiracy offense, the court reversed only as to the drug quantity finding, as there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction; and the court was unpersuaded by defendants' remaining claims of error. View "United States v. Daniels, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their sentences and convictions for conspiracy to commit theft from a program receiving federal funds. The court concluded that it was reasonable for a jury to infer from the evidence that defendants knew the purpose of the check-cashing scheme and joined it willfully; the district court did not err in applying a three-level enhancement for defendants' managerial roles in the offense under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b) and in its loss calculation; and defendants' within-guidelines sentences were substantively reasonable where the district court took into consideration their personal circumstances when weighing 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brown, et al." on Justia Law