Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant filed a motion to vacate his conviction for concealment of bankruptcy estate assets valued at more than $942,000 under 28 U.S.C 2255, arguing that his court-appointed counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The magistrate judge recommended granting relief but was overruled by the district court. Because defendant's indictment was timely, he could not show that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to research the applicable statute of limitations in advance of defendant's guilty plea; counsel did not fail to adequately investigate defendant's criminal case; and while counsel's performance was less than commendable where counsel did not recall looking at certain discovery documents or understanding what defendant was pleading guilty to, defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by such deficient performance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Curtis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation following conviction of a felony offense in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), and being an alien unlawfully present in the United States and in possession of a firearm previously transported in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2). The court agreed with its sister circuits and held that an unlawful reentry offense and a section 992(g) offense should not be grouped as they harm different societal interests. Because the offenses affected different societal interests, they have different "victims" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2(a). Since the offenses had different "victims," section 3D1.2(a) does not require their grouping. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's multiple-count adjustment. View "United States v. McLauling" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged her commitment to a mental health treatment facility within the federal prison system under 18 U.S.C. 4245. The court concluded that the Government's petition for a commitment hearing was authorized because appellant objected in writing to the purpose of her hospitalization. The court also concluded that, although there was some dispute as to whether treatment was necessary to address appellant's belligerence and aggression, there was clear and convincing evidence that psychiatric treatment was necessary to ensure that appellant's medical conditions could be properly treated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sealed Appellee 1 v. Sealed Appellant 1" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances - including defendant's brisk departure from his car and the circumstances that transpired during the seconds between her exit and the officer's seizure of him - did not amount to articulable facts from which an officer could reasonably suspect that defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Accordingly, the seizure violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights under Terry v. Ohio and the court vacated the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry. The court held that defendant's previous conviction in Texas state court for burglary was a predicate offense constituting a "burglary of a dwelling" under the Sentencing Guidelines and was therefore a crime of violence. The court also held that defendant's written Texas "boiler plate" judicial confession, in which he confessed to "each and every act alleged" in the indictment, was sufficient to establish that his prior conviction rested on every offense the indictment charged. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Conde-Castaneda" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry. The court concluded that an offense defined by Louisiana Revised Statutes section 14:34, as narrowed pursuant to the modified categorical approach, qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 because it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the person of another. Because section 14:34 criminalizes aggravated batteries committed by administering poison, which does not necessarily entail the destructive or violent use of physical force, the statute as a whole does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence. In this case, the court may narrow the statute of conviction under the modified categorical approach to exclude the possibility that defendant was convicted of aggravated battery committed by means of poisoning. The court concluded that the offense for which defendant was convicted necessarily had as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the person of another and therefore qualifies as a crime of violence under section 2L1.2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Herrera-Alvarez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to reentry of a deported alien. The government withheld an additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b) for pretrial acceptance of responsibility solely because defendant refused to waive his right to appeal. Amendment 755 to the Sentencing Guidelines became effective after defendant was sentenced but while this appeal was pending. Amendment 755 provides that the government should not withhold a section 3E1.1(b) motion based on interests not identified in section 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive his right to appeal. Concluding that the amended Guidelines applied to this case, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Palacios" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 211 kilograms of marijuana. The district court found that defendant was responsible for 2,648.8 additional kilograms of marijuana as relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines. The resulting increase in his base offense level, combined with the effects of other challenged sentencing factors, enhanced his prison sentence substantially. The court rejected defendant's Sixth Amendment contention, which requires facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence to be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the government breached its plea agreement by advocating for the obstruction of justice enhancement and failing to recommend the acceptance of responsibility reduction. The court concluded that there was no indication on the record that this affected his mandatory minimum sentence and the district court did not plainly err in sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hinojosa" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to using a fraudulent visa as proof of permission to enter the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a two level enhancement for previous deportation under U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(1). The court affirmed the sentence, rejecting defendant's contention that because he voluntarily departed he had not "been deported" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(1). View "United States v. Murillo-Acosta" on Justia Law

Movant, a death row prisoner, contended that he is intellectually disabled and is, therefore, constitutionally ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia. The court concluded that the evidence in the record was more than sufficient to satisfy movant's burden of making out a prima facie showing of intellectual disability sufficient to warrant a successive habeas petition. Having authorized movant to file a successive federal habeas petition asserting his Atkins claims, the court granted the motion for a stay of execution pending resolution of movant's Atkins claim. View "In re: Robert Campbell" on Justia Law