Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm where the district court found that defendant constructively possessed the firearm that was found and that it was not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with defendant's drug trafficking offense. The district court also properly applied a two level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Renteria-Saldana" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on his trial counsel's ineffectiveness. The court concluded that counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient for failing to assert a statute of limitations defense and the district court properly denied relief on this claim; under the circumstances, which include a deadlocked jury in petitioner's first trial, the court granted in part petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability, vacate the denial of section 2255 relief, and remand to the district court to reconsider the issue in light of Burrage v. United States; the court also left for the district court to determine in the first instance whether petitioner's substantive challenge faces any significant procedural hurdles to its consideration on the merits. View "Ragland v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for use of interstate facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. 2E1.4(a)(2) to cross reference to U.S.S.G. 2A1.5(b)(1) to calculate the base offense level for his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of a class B misdemeanor under N.D. Cent. Code 36-11-01 for the offense of livestock running at large after three of his horses were discovered roaming freely in his neighbor's fields. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that, under North Dakota law, petitioner was entitled to appeal his misdemeanor conviction as a matter of right. The court held that petitioner was entitled to relief on his habeas petition, and thus the court remanded the case to the district court with directions that it be held in abeyance for not longer than 120 days from the date of issuance of the court's mandate. If within that time the State grants petitioner leave to take an out-of-time appeal with the assistance of counsel, the district court shall dismiss his petition. If such an appeal is not granted within that period, the district court shall enter judgment vacating petitioner's conviction. View "Koenig v. State of North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. Defendant pled guilty to a drug offense and argued on appeal that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant has demonstrated that his counsel's performance was deficient, the record conclusively showed that defendant was not entitled to relief where he failed to demonstrate that, absent the three alleged errors, there was a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Frausto" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment after applying the first-degree murder cross-reference from U.S.S.G. 2A1.1 where defendant possessed the firearm while participating in a homicide. The court concluded that the district court did not err by conducting its own fact-finding for the purposes of the section 2A1.1 cross-reference and otherwise determining the guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court concluded that defendant's prior sexual-abuse convictions qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court also concluded that defendant's argument that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague was foreclosed by precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 for willful obstruction of justice. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in applying the six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.2(c)(1) for attempting to stab a detective with a pen. Because defendant had been arrested, was shackled to the floor of an interview room at the police station, and made no attempt to flee, the assault did not occur during immediate flight from the felon-in-possession offense. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his revocation of supervised release, arguing that the district court violated his due process right to confront witnesses when it admitted hearsay evidence - a police report - at the revocation hearing without engaging in the analysis required by United States v. Bell and later decisions. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the Bell issue was not properly preserved in the district court. View "United States v. Simms" on Justia Law

Defendants Conway, Robinson, and Randolph appealed their conviction for various drug and weapons offenses. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of the offenses; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence failed to support the giving of a buyer-seller instruction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a multiple conspiracies preliminary instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Conway" on Justia Law