Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of more than five grams of cocaine base. Defendant subsequently appealed his sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), 21 U.S.C. 844(a), because the conduct giving rise to the offense took place before August 19, 2008, the date of defendant's initial indictment. The court held that defendant's five-year term of imprisonment exceeded the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the post-FSA version of 21 U.S.C. 844(a). Furthermore, defendant's three-year term of supervised release exceeded the maximum authorized term of supervised release. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a successive federal habeas petition, contending that he was mentally retarded and ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The district court denied relief, but granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the state court's determination that petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning was unreasonable. The court concluded that the state court's determination was not unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lewis v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant, an inmate on death row, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment concerning his claim that Mississippi's lethal injection procedures violated his Eight Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Because Baze v. Rees precluded the remedy sought, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Thorson v. Epps, et al" on Justia Law

An indictment charged defendant with being a felon in possession (Count 1) and for being a felon in possession of ammunition (Count 2). On appeal, defendant subsequently challenged his convictions and sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; no material variance existed between the indictment, which charged defendant with possession of a firearm and a box of ammunition, and the proof at trial, which showed a loaded firearm and two boxes of ammunition; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to impeach its witness with a prior inconsistent statement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendant's prior inconsistent statement; the government did not engage in misconduct during closing argument. The court held, however, that defendant's sentences violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and therefore vacated the sentences, remanding for dismissal for one of the counts of the indictment. View "United States v. Meza, III" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The court held that the district court committed plain error by structuring his sentence to be served concurrently with a discharged state sentence and consequently, defendant's substantial rights were seriously effected. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kirklin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Texas state prisoner, exhausted his state remedies and moved to file a habeas corpus petition. The district court dismissed the application without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2244, holding the petition was a second or successive petition. The court held that there was no precedent for holding a claim previously dismissed without prejudice for failure to meet the exhaustion requirement was a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2) if refiled after exhaustion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, holding that petitioner's petition was not a second or successive petition within the meaning of section 2244. View "Strickland v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of producing child pornography and sexually exploiting a child, and one count of possessing child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to grant defendant's motion for acquittal because the government failed to introduce evidence showing that he knew or should have known that the pornographic images of the victim were produced on a camera or computer that traveled in interstate commerce; the district court did not err in denying his motion for acquittal because there was insufficient evidence; the district court did not err by instructing the jury in response to the jury's note; there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to show that he knowingly possessed images of child pornography; and the district court's response to the jury note at issue was not an incorrect statement of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Terrell" on Justia Law

These are consolidated appeals of Defendants Ted Murray, David Lapin, and Jeffrey Wigginton. Defendants were convicted and sentenced for crimes related to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering. The district court subsequently reopened the three sentences that it had imposed more than six months earlier, adding to each a requirement that each defendant make restitution. Because the court lacked the authority to do so, the court reversed. View "United States v. Murray, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, which was calculated using an enhancement applicable to aggravated felonies. The court held that, even if categorizing defendant's manslaughter conviction as a crime of violence were plain error, there was no substantial harm because his separate conviction for evading arrest would have been sufficient to support the same 16-level sentencing enhancement. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of 180 months, an upward departure from the guidelines imprisonment range. View "United States v. Vargas-Soto" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry following a deportation. Defendant had earlier been convicted of a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The district court increased defendant's sentence because it considered the earlier crime to be a "drug trafficking offense" as that term was defined by U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of "conspiracy" as not requiring an over act. The error was plain and affected defendant's substantial rights because the error increased the term of his sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno" on Justia Law