Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction of possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, interstate travel in aid of racketeering activity, and possession of an unregistered firearm. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2-4 on double jeopardy grounds; the district court did not err in applying the good-faith exception and denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained at his home; certain statements defendant made to police were not inadmissible as fruit of a poisonous tree and the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Tovar" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of trafficking in counterfeit goods and sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence. The district court denied the motion and denied a certificate of appealability. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district court erred in denying defendant's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective without conducting an evidentiary hearing. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence resulting from his involvement in a conspiracy to rob an armored truck. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to give an entrapment instruction; because defendant failed to set out a prima facie case that he was entrapped, his evidentiary insufficiency argument was unavailing; defendant was not entitled to a sentencing entrapment defense even if it were available in this circuit; the district court's denial of a sentencing reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 was not in error; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a civil rights action against defendants seeking damages for injuries suffered as a result of their nine-month imprisonment. Plaintiffs were arrested for murder and the charges against them were eventually dropped. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment on the false arrest claim in favor of Defendants Brooks and McNeal, the grant of summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim in favor of Brooks, and the denial of their motion for leave to amend. Because the district court did not certify as a final judgment its initial order dismissing the claims against Lamar County with prejudice, Lamar County was still a party to the suit at the time plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint. The district court thus abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The district court did not, however, abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add Defendant Keele to the litigation. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's orders granting summary judgment to defendants. View "Crostley, et al. v. Lamar County, TX, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for mail fraud, arguing that the district court violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161-3174. Defendant directed the Governor's Program on Abstinence, a state-funded organization formed to facilitate abstinence education in Louisiana schools. Defendant was accused and later convicted of orchestrating a scheme to fraudulently direct state funds to her son. Because the court concluded that the delays prompted by defense counsel's motions to continue, and by the parties' joint notice of intent to enter a guilty plea, were properly excludable under the Act, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dignam" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder of a nine-year-old and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of her petition for habeas relief. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (COA) so that she could appeal on three grounds: first, her legal team failed to investigate facts relevant to her conviction for capital murder; second, her legal team failed to investigate and present mitigation evidence, and third, she was incarcerated for an offense of which she was actually innocent. Because jurists of reason would not disagree with or find debatable the district court's rejection of her claims, the court denied her request for a COA. View "Coleman v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, currently serving life sentences in Louisiana, repeatedly sought to have his sentences commuted in order to become eligible for parole. After he was first convicted, Louisiana altered its commutation process. This appeal concerned plaintiff's complaint that the application of the new process to him violated the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. Because the ultimate decision of the Louisiana governor as to whether to grant or deny commutation remained entirely discretionary, plaintiff could not establish an ex post facto violation by identifying alterations to the State's commutation procedure increasing the amount of time between when commutation applications could be filed and granting the Board authority to deny a full hearing on an applicant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Howard v. Blanco, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, a deputy officer, following an altercation between the parties where plaintiff alleged claims of false arrest and excessive force. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and state-law official immunity on plaintiff's state-law claims. The court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's false arrest claim because a reasonable officer at the scene would have thought that he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, but not on plaintiff's excessive force claim. In addition, defendant was entitled to official immunity on plaintiff's state-law false arrest and imprisonment claim but not on plaintiff's state-law assault and battery claim. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and dismissed in part. View "Ramirez v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his federal guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to commit aggravated alien transporting, arguing principally that his plea lacked an adequate factual basis and that the district court misadvised him as to his sentencing exposure, rendering his plea involuntary. The court concluded that the district court's error in accepting his guilty plea, if any, was not plain, and that its admonishment regarding his sentencing exposure, though clear error, did not materially affect his decision to plead guilty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Alvarado-Casas" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. Defendant contended on appeal, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines, that he was entitled to benefit from all of the changes wrought by the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-120, 124 Stat. 2372, such that the district court erred in declining to reduce his sentence below the original mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. The court previously held that where a defendant was subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, the district court was not authorized to grant a reduction below that minimum. Here, the court joined its sister circuits in declining to treat a section 3582(c)(2) modification hearing as the equivalent of an original sentencing under Dorsey v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kelly" on Justia Law