Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to unlawful reentry and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because neither defendant's identity nor his INS file were suppressible, although the court concluded that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion and clearly violated the Fourth Amendment in stopping defendant. Accordingly, the court was bound by precedent and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano" on Justia Law

Appellees, the Rubins, requested that the district court issue a Writ of Garnishment against the assets of Hamas and HLF after obtaining a judgment against Hamas for damages resulting from a terrorist attack in an outdoor pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The district court executed the writ but the Rubins could not execute against HLF's assets because those assets had been restrained under 21 U.S.C. 853 to preserve their availability for criminal forfeiture proceedings. The district court subsequently denied the government's motion to dismiss the Rubins' third-party petition under section 853(n) to assert their interests in the restrained assets and vacated the preliminary order of forfeiture. The district court held that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), Pub. L. No. 107-297, title II, 201, 116 Stat. 2337, allowed the Rubins to execute against HLF's assets not withstanding the government's forfeiture proceedings. The court reversed, holding that section 853(n) did not provide the Rubins with a basis to prevail in the ancillary proceeding; TRIA did not provide the Rubins a basis to assert their interest in the forfeited property; TRIA did not trump the criminal forfeiture statute; and the in custodia legis doctrine did not preclude the district court's in personam jurisdiction over HLF. View "United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition because it was filed after the one-year statute of limitations period under section 2244(d)(1)(A). The court held that petitioner was not entitled to statutory tolling because he failed to show that state action prevented him from filing his petition. The court also held that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to show an extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from timely filing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Clarke v. Rader" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to firearm and robbery offenses and subsequently challenged his sentence on appeal. The court concluded, based on the record, that the district court's factual finding that defendant had a management role in the robbery under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) was not clearly erroneous. The court concluded, however, that the district court's factual finding of bodily injury under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) was clearly erroneous because it was based on unreliable facts in the presentencing report. Because this was not harmless error, the court vacated the bodily-injury enhancement and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Zuniga" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate her conviction. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of whether defendant's suppression motion would have been meritorious. The court vacated the COA and remanded for clarification as to whether defendant had made a substantial showing of the denial of her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and was entitled to a COA on that issue. View "United States v. Ratliff" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. The court held that it was error to rule that defendant's third degree aggravated assault conviction constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) and apply the 16-level increase to the base offense level. The error was not harmless where the district court did not clearly state that it would impose the same sentence if there had not been a 16-level enhancement based on the prior crime of violence. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The district court subsequently granted defendant a certificate of appealability (COA) regarding his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective in not raising three Batson-related arguments on direct appeal. The court concluded that defendant failed to show that the state habeas court was unreasonable in rejecting his failure-to-investigate argument and it was well within the bounds of judicial determination for the state court to conclude that appellate counsel could follow a strategy that did not require raising the Batson arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment denying habeas relief, concluding that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in rejecting the claim. View "Higgins v. Cain" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences related to the bribery of two public officials to procure a multimillion dollar contract. The court concluded that the district court participated in defendant's plea negotiations in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and the district court's error was plain in light of the court's well-settled circuit law prohibiting a court's participation in plea negotiations. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's guilty pleas and sentences, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

After the district court denied petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, he sought a certificate of appealability (COA) pursuant to section 2253(c)(2). The court concluded that petitioner's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance and rejected petitioner's claims under Strickland v. Washington; petitioner's allegations, under Brady v. Maryland, that the State suppressed favorable statements it obtained in investigating his case were rejected by the court; and, assuming the prosecutor's statements regarding excluded evidence were improper, they did not substantially affect petitioner's right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the court concluded that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's conclusions and denied the COA application. View "Trottie v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault. This case arose out of the sentencing proceeding that stemmed from defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250. The court held that the district court erred by relying on bare arrest records when determining defendant's conditions of supervised release and the "no direct or indirect" condition was flawed by substantive error. Accordingly, the court vacated the imposition of the mental-health treatment condition and remanded for resentencing. The court reversed the imposition of the "no director or indirect" contact condition. View "United States v. Windless" on Justia Law