Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence for unlawfully reentering the United States. Defendant argued that the district court erred in applying a 12-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. The court affirmed the sentence, concluding that defendant's prior New Mexico conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was a crime of violence within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. View "United States v. Carrasco-Tercero" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and for want of prosecution. Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the shower floor of the "C Dorm" was slippery and unsafe, and that he received inadequate medical care. Plaintiff had fallen three times and sustained a fractured hip as a result. The court held that plaintiff did not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment with the contention that a slippery shower condition may inflict cruel and unusual punishment. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against Defendants Sweetin, Oliver, Cowan, and Brown where prisoner slip-and-fall claims almost never serve as the predicate for constitutional violations as a matter of law. The court also concluded that Defendants Erwin and Fisher ignored plaintiff's complaints and pleas for help. Therefore, the court reversed the dismissal of these defendants and remanded for further proceedings. With regard to Defendant Lamb, however, the mere allegation that plaintiff complained of his pain and lack of official response during a disciplinary proceeding Lamb conducted on an entirely different matter did not suffice for Eighth Amendment purposes. Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to raise the possibility of Defendant Hough's deliberate indifference to plaintiff and the court reversed the dismissal of Hough and remanded. Because the record was devoid of material delay or contumacious conduct, the court reversed the dismissal of Defendant McManus and remanded. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. View "Coleman v. Sweetin, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to drug offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing a two-level enhancement to defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(5) for the importation of methamphetamine. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because the methamphetamine defendant possessed was imported from Mexico and the enhancement was properly applied. View "United States v. Foulks" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. The court affirmed, concluding that defendant's statements before the magistrate judge provided a sufficient basis for the district court to find that close assistance of counsel was available to defendant. The court held, however, that when a Padilla claim was sufficiently presented during a motion to withdraw plea, both legally and factually, a district court erred in failing to address the claim. In this case, because the district court did not make factual findings on the Padilla claim specifically, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to address the merits of that claim. View "United States v. Urias-Marrufo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for three murders, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. Allegedly without consulting petitioner, his counsel decided not to file a timely appeal. Upon motion, the district court then vacated and reentered its judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), allowing petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days of the reentered judgment. In Case No. 13-70006, the Director appealed from the district court's grant of petitioner's motion to vacate and reenter judgment. In Case No. 13-70002, petitioner appealed the reentered judgment, requesting a certificate of appealability (COA). The court concluded that petitioner was solely using a Rule 60(b) motion as a means of achieving an untimely appeal. Under Supreme Court precedent and the court's precedent, the district court lacked the power to circumvent the rules for timely appeals in the manner it did. The court vacated the order granting relief and reentered judgment. The March 2012 judgment is a "live" judgment as to which petitioner's appeal was, admittedly, untimely. Accordingly, the court granted the Director's motion to dismiss Case No. 13-70002 for want of jurisdiction. The court vacated Case No. 13-70006. View "Perez v. Stephens" on Justia Law

After defendant violated the terms of his supervised release by failing to register as a sex offender and to meet with his counselor, defendant was sentenced to a prison term plus an additional period of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by not explaining how Special Condition No. 6, which prohibited defendant from possessing, using, or purchasing sexually stimulating or oriented materials, was reasonably related to the statutory factors. Moreover, the court concluded that it was an abuse of discretion to conclude that this condition was reasonably related to the sentencing factors. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of methamphetamine-related offenses, appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in assessing two criminal history points for defendant's prior Colorado sentence. Defendant argued that his prior sentence could not have been a prior sentence of imprisonment of at least 60 days under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(b). The court concluded that defendant's prior sentence was not suspended in full and the non-suspended portion exceeded 60 days. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence after being convicted of two theft offenses involving Government property with a value less than $1,000, contending that 18 U.S.C. 641 did not permit her to be convicted of more than a single felony count. Defendant obtained postal stamps at United States Postal Offices in various locations, tendering checks with insufficient funds as payment in these transactions. The court concluded that defendant's interpretation of the statute reflected the plain language of section 641. Even if the court were unconvinced that defendant's view was the correct one, the court would be bound under the rule of lenity to adopt the position favoring defendant. Accordingly, the court held that defendant was properly subject to only a single felony count under section 641 and must be resentenced accordingly. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Lagrone" on Justia Law

Relators filed suit against their former employers, alleging that defendants defrauded the Government by filing fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims. At issue was whether the district court properly held that, because there was no qui tam complaint in existence at the time the Government pursued criminal charges against defendants, the criminal proceeding did not constitute an "alternate remedy" under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5). The court held that because there was no qui tam action pending at the commencement of the restitution proceeding, the restitution proceeding did not constitute an alternate remedy under the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of the Government and remanded for further proceedings. View "Babalola, et al. v. Sharma, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to receiving material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. At issue was whether the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for distribution of child pornography. The court found that section 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) did not contain a scienter requirement. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement absent evidence of defendant's knowledge that the file-sharing program, Frostwire, enabled other users to access the child pornography he downloaded. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law