Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to knowing possession of child pornography but reserved the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress a series of confessions given to border patrol agents. The court held that when presented with a delay outside of the safe harbor, a district court must apply the McNabb-Mallory doctrine to determine whether the delay in bringing a suspect before a magistrate was reasonable. In this instance, the court concluded that the totality of the circumstances showed that defendant's statements were voluntary even though he was not presented to a magistrate judge until two days after his detainment. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's 9 p.m. confession did not violate his Miranda rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Boche-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a weapon in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the first indictment without prejudice and therefore properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the second indictment; the court rejected defendant's claim that Count Two was either duplicitous or failed to state an offense under 18 U.S.C. 924; but the district court erred in holding that it did not matter whether defendant was served on the morning of trial with the second 21 U.S.C. 851(a) notice. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed on all counts. The court vacated the sentence on Count One and remanded for further proceedings on that count. View "United States v. Blevins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for causing a person under the age of 18 to engage in a commercial sex act, and aiding and abetting the promotion of prostitution. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction; there was no plain error in the district court's jury instruction; defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor's statements at closing argument prejudiced his substantial rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's motion for a new trial was time-barred; and the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement for the use of a computer under U.S.S.G. 2G1.3(b)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Phea" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged with, inter alia, four counts of creating and one count of distributing animal crush videos. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's dismissal of counts one through five. Congress revised 18 U.S.C. 48 to make it a crime to knowingly create, sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video. The district court concluded that section 48 was facially invalid. However, the court concluded that section 48 incorporates Miller v. California obscenity and thus by its terms proscribes only unprotected speech. The court rejected defendants' arguments under R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and held that Congress has a significant interest in preventing the secondary effects of animal crush videos, which promote and require violence and criminal activity. Furthermore, section 48 serves the government interest in a reasonably tailored way. Thus, section 48 is a permissible regulation of a subset of proscribable speech. The court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Richards, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for conspiracy to bring illegal aliens into the United States, bringing illegal aliens into the United States, and being unlawfully present in the United States following a prior deportation. The court vacated and remanded the case for resentencing because the court concluded that the district court erred in its application of the grouping guidelines when grouping defendant's counts of conviction. View "United States v. Garcia-Figueroa" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for being a felon unlawfully in possession of a firearm. The district court concluded that defendant's prior federal conviction for escaping from the custody of the BOP by leaving a halfway house was a "crime of violence" within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a). The court concluded that it was bound by its en banc ruling in United States v. Charles, which permitted consideration of the conduct alleged in the indictment. The indictment underlying defendant's conviction alleged that he knowingly escaped from the custody of the BOP, by absconding from a halfway house in which he was lawfully confined. Thus, the conduct charged on the face of the indictment was that defendant absconded from a halfway house. Absconding from a halfway house does not categorically present a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for possessing with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. The court affirmed the district court's judgment because the evidence at issue did not amount to an improper drug courier profile and because the court recognized that defendant's knowledge argument was foreclosed by the court's precedent. View "United States v. Medeles-Cab" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty of being illegally present in the United States after removal. The court affirmed the district court's application of a sixteen-level crime-of-violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his Texas conviction of indecency with a child. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Elizondo-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for passing an altered obligation of the United States with intent to defraud. Defendant attempted to pass a forged $100 bill at a Dollar Tree. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the Government's exhibit 2 was the bill that was passed to the Dollar Tree and, therefore, the district court did not err in admitting the counterfeit bill into evidence; the district court did not plainly err regarding the in-court identifications of the witnesses at trial; there was no plain error because defendant was handcuffed during the testimony of a witness; the district court properly imposed a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) for manufacturing or producing counterfeit obligation or possessing or having custody of or control over a counterfeiting device or materials; and challenges to his indictment and sentence as violating the rule set forth in Alleyne v. United States were rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioner was denied special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 203(a)(1), 111 Stat. 2160, 2196, because the BIA considered his 1992 Virginia conviction for "carnal knowledge of a child between thirteen and fifteen years of age" an aggravated felony as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A). The court concluded that petitioner's conviction under the Virginia statute necessarily means that he also has been convicted of the generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor, an aggravated felony within the INA. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Contreras v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law