Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiring to harbor illegal aliens for commercial advantage or private financial gain. The court concluded that the district court erred in admitting bad-act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) but the error was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(5) for brandishing a dangerous weapon, U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(6) for intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, and U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(7) for causing substantial bodily harm. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington; the district court committed no error under Brady v. Maryland; petitioner's claim of discrimination in selecting a grand jury foreperson was abandoned and procedurally barred; in regards to petitioner's Batson challenges, the district court did not err in holding that petitioner had not provided clear and convincing evidence that the state court's determination was unreasonable; and petitioner's claim of racial discrimination by the jury failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hoffman v. Cain" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for multiple drug and gun violations. Defendant decided to testify during trial and confessed to all of the crimes charged. At the trial's conclusion, believing no factual issue remained for the jury, the district court instructed the jury "to go back and find the Defendant guilty." As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that defendant preserved his Sixth Amendment argument for appeal. On the merits, the court concluded that the Sixth Amendment safeguards even an obviously guilty defendant's right to have a jury decide guilt or innocence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and six counts of aiding and abetting healthcare fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to justify the district court in concluding that defendant knew about the fraudulent upcoding and that the government proved defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; even assuming that the district court erred in a bench trial in excluding defendant's polygraph evidence, the court held that the error was harmless; and the district court did not err in applying an abuse-of-trust enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Willett" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court improperly engaged in the plea negotiations. The court concluded that, in this instance, the district court did more than offer generic commentary about the pros and cons of plea offers. The district court gave specific examples of negative results for defendants who rejected plea offers, it compared the evidence in defendant's case with other cases, and it suggested through a "success story" that favorable results could occur when a defendant pleads guilty. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings before a different district judge. View "United States v. Hemphill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for embezzling government funds, witness tampering, and several other offenses related to her work at a Mississippi housing authority. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial following the playing of an unobjected-to tape recording in court in which she stated that no jury would convict her of the charged offenses. Even assuming that defendant had made a timely objection to the evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where the tape recording was highly probative of defendant's intent to retaliate against SDRHA employees who cooperated with the FBI's investigation, and she was on trial for three counts of retaliation. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions on all counts. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court should have sequestered the jury or changed the trial venue due to negative media coverage surrounding the trial. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence of thirty-two months imprisonment was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for committing a hate crime under the Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1). The court affirmed, concluding that the Supreme Court's Thirteenth Amendment precedent allowed Congress to define and regulate the "badges" and "incidents" of slavery so long as their definition is rational, and the Act survived rational basis review. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants caused bodily injury to the victim because of his race. View "United States v. Cannon, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 89 months of imprisonment. Because defendant refused to waive his right to appeal, the Government declined to move for a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b). After sentencing, and while his appeal was pending, the Sentencing Commission amended the commentary to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b), which now instructs prosecutors not to withhold such motions on the basis of defendant's failure to waive his appellate rights. The court affirmed the sentence because even assuming that Amendment 775 should be considered on appeal, defendant's substantial rights have not been affected. The court declined to follow the First Circuit's decision, which remanded an appeal for resentencing in light of a post-sentencing amendment despite the fact that the amendment was substantive and not clarifying. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Garcia-Carrillo" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court granted a COA as to petitioner's claim that trial counsel's failure to investigate and present adequate mitigating evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The court denied a COA with regard to the argument that Martinez v. Ryan compelled the federal habeas court to consider newly presented evidence that was never submitted to the state habeas court where new evidence presented to the district court did not fundamentally alter his claim but merely provided additional evidentiary support for his claim. View "Escamilla v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b) as an alien unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. The district court concluded that defendant's prior state-court conviction for conspiracy to commit murder warranted a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. The court concluded that conspiracy to commit murder, within the meaning of Application Note 5 of section 2L1.2, did not require an overt act as an element of the offense and the court rejected defendant's claims to the contrary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Pascacio-Rodriguez" on Justia Law