Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was arrested and charged with threatening to kill the President, a former President, and a federal law enforcement officer. On appeal, defendant challenged an order of the district court directing the BOP to involuntarily administer psychiatric medicine to him for the purpose of restoring his competency to stand trial. The court found that the BOP satisfactorily complied with the 1992 version of CFR 549.43(a)(5), which required that a psychiatrist hearing officer "determine whether treatment or psychotropic medication was necessary in order to attempt to make the inmate competent for trial." In light of Sell v. United States, the court affirmed the district court's order approving involuntary medication for the purpose of restoring defendant to competency. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and lifetime term of supervised release following a guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender. The court found that the sentencing judge adequately explained her reasons for rejecting defendant's mitigating evidence and imposing an upward variance on the term of imprisonment. Therefore, defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable. Likewise, the court held that the 27 months of imprisonment was substantively reasonable where the sentencing judge did not abuse her discretion by determining that defendant's willingness to cooperate did not mitigate his offense or criminal history, and in giving significant weight to defendant's criminal history and its characteristics. The court held, however, that the order regarding the lifetime term of supervised release must be vacated because the sentencing judge did not give reasons for her decision. View "United States v. Fraga" on Justia Law

Defendants were sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering a fellow prison inmate. Defendants appealed their sentences and convictions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing five prospective jurors who expressed reservations about their ability to impose capital punishment. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated premeditation and in view of this evidence, a jury could not rationally have found defendants guilty of second degree murder, while acquitting them of first degree murder. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' request for a lesser-included-offense instruction. A rational juror could have concluded that defendants intended to inflict, and in fact did inflict, greater abuse than that necessary to cause the victim's death. A rational juror could have concluded that defendants posed a future threat to the safety of other inmates or prison staff based on, inter alia, defendants' pattern of violence and institutional misconduct, as well as defendants' attack on the victim and the penitentiary's correctional officers. Defendants have not demonstrated specific prejudice from the denial of their motion to sever. The court addressed defendants' remaining arguments and affirmed their convictions and capital sentences in all respects. View "United States v. Snarr, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty, without the benefit of a plea agreement, of being unlawfully present in the United States after having been deported. On appeal, defendant challenged his sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)-(1)(A)(ii). The court held that defendant's prior conviction of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft under Texas state law constituted a crime of violence because of its inherent potential for harm to persons. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Morales-Mota" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Louisiana state court denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. The federal district court subsequently granted habeas relief, determining that the state court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Petitioner claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not investigate and interview alibi witnesses who would have testified that petitioner had not shot the victim. The court concluded that the state court's finding that petitioner's counsel interviewed alibi witnesses was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. Therefore, it was error to conclude as the district court did that there was no reasonable argument that counsel's performance was satisfactory. The court did not need to reach the issue of prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kately v. Cain" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and in applying a two-point sentencing enhancement for use of a minor to commit his crime. Because the officer's continued search and seizure beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop were justified by additional reasonable suspicion, the district court did not err in concluding that the scope of the stop was reasonable. Because the court found that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the drug evidence, the court did not reach the remaining plain error factors. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying the U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 enhancement where defendant's choice to drive a truck containing over twenty kilograms of cocaine and a four-year-old girl from Laredo to Chicago constituted an "affirmative act" involving a minor in the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Andres" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of failing to comply with his registration requirement in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16913(a). On appeal, defendant argued that the district court's instruction to the jury erroneously defined the term "resides," and constituted harmful error. Because the district court's instruction was not inconsistent with SORNA and because defendant failed to allege the instruction misstated the Sentencing Guidelines, the court found no reversible error in the district court's instruction and affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Wampler" on Justia Law

Defendants pleaded guilty to defrauding health-care insurers by billing for pain injections that they never administered. Defendants appealed the district court's order that they pay over $43 million in restitution to 32 victims defrauded by the scheme. The court concluded that the record did not support the entire restitution amount recommended and therefore the district court abused its discretion in adopting the unsupported figure. The court held, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply a restitution credit. Accordingly, the court vacated the order of restitution and remanded for recalculation. As defendants' plea agreements stipulated to a forfeiture money judgment in the same amount as the restitution award, the court also vacated the amount of the forfeiture award and remanded for recalculation. The court further held that the government did not breach the plea agreements with defendants. View "United States v. Sharma" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of attempting to evade or defeat a tax; four counts of willful failure to file a tax return; and one count of attempting to interfere with the administration of internal revenue laws. Defendant appealed. Although the court granted defendant's motion to reconsider the clerk's denial of his motion to extend the time for filing a reply and allowed the brief to be submitted to the court, the court nevertheless concluded that the district court did not err in any respect. Because the court held that there were no merits to any of defendant's substantive points, and because the court held that the statute of limitations accrued from the last evasive act under 26 U.S.C. 6531(2), the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Irby, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and importation of cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the minor participant adjustment but that it did err in its application of a five-year period of ineligibility. Nevertheless, the court declined to exercise its discretion to correct the error because there was no evidence that defendant was or might be eligible for federal benefits during the five-year period of ineligibility imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Silva-De Hoyos" on Justia Law