Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of ten counts of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 1956, which prohibited individuals from laundering the "proceeds" of certain activities. After the Supreme Court held that "proceeds" meant "profits" rather than "gross receipts" in United States v. Santos, defendant moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and appealed from the district court's denial of that motion. The court concluded that defendant did not argue on appeal that he was entitled to relief under the two-step analysis described in Garland v. Roy. Therefore, the court need not and did not resolve those issues. Because Garland prevented the court from uniformly defining "proceeds" as "profits" across the money-laundering statute, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ghali" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's striking of his appeal waiver and the sentence imposed. The court held that the district court did not have the authority to strike defendant's appeal waiver, and he had thus waived his right to appeal. Because defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal in an enforceable plea agreement, the court upheld the sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Serrano-Lara" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the court found no basis in Panetti v. Quarterman or elsewhere for the district court's holding that a competency hearing at which petitioner testified and both petitioner and respondent introduced expert testimony, including medical records stipulated as accurate, violated the due process clause. The court also found no basis for concluding that the state court's decision that petitioner was competent to be executed was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Finally, the court found that petitioner had failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption in favor of upholding the state court's competency finding. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's stay of execution and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "Green v. Thaler" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the public corruption trial centering around former Dallas City Councilman Don Hill. Appellant appealed the district court's denial of his request for an award of restitution as a purported victim of defendant's criminal bribery offense. As this court recently concluded that nonparties could not challenge adverse restitution rulings via direct appeal, and instead must rely on the procedures for such challenges expressly set forth in the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(6), the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Slovacek" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed his conviction and sentence, remanding to the state trial court with instructions to hold a new trial. That trial has yet to occur. In 2006, petitioner unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus from Texas courts and then applied for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court found fault with the continuing incarceration but dismissed petitioner's claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state remedies. The court held that the district court did not err and affirmed the judgment. View "Hartfield v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to seventy-seven months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court erred when it applied a sixteen-level crime of violence enhancement based on a prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Because defendant's argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Quiroga-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to twenty-three months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court erred when it applied a sixteen-level crime of violence enhancement based on a prior Texas conviction for sexual assault of a child. Because defendant's argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of whether petitioner waived his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that the merits of petitioner's claim were adjudicated by the state courts, and that the state court's resolution of that claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Divers v. Cain" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a grand jury investigation in which the target of the investigation (the witness) was subpoenaed to produce any records of foreign bank accounts he was required to keep under Treasury Department regulations governing offshore banking. The witness informed the government that he would not comply with the subpoena, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the government moved to compel the witness to comply. Because the court concluded that the Required Records Doctrine applied in this case, the court declined the witness's invitation to create a circuit split and accordingly reversed the district court's denial of the government's motion to compel the witness to comply with the subpoena. View "In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas for two murders. Petitioner challenged his death sentence in habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court denied relief and petitioner sought a certificate of appealability. Petitioner raised issues related to ineffective assistance of counsel, violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under Beck v. Alabama, and violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the trial judge excluded a jurist on the basis of her conscientious scruples against the death penalty. The court denied petitioner's request because jurists of reason could not debate the district court's denial of habeas relief under section 2254.