Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base and his concurrent sentence for managing a home for the purpose of distributing cocaine base. There was sufficient evidence to find that defendant engaged in a conspiracy involving in excess of 280 grams and any error was not plain; because the district court properly applied the separate U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 enhancement to find an offense level of 37, no plain error occurred because even without the application U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12), defendant's offense level would have been the same; and the district court did not abuse its discretion and the sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Goodrich" on Justia Law

Defendants Martinus and Maurice appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court concluded that Martinus's eighty-five month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the appropriate factors in varying from the guidelines and adequately explained its sentence. Because the district court would have sentenced Maurice to the same sentence even without the government's breach of the plea agreement, the court could not say that the breach of the plea agreement required reversal under the plain error standard; the district court sufficiently explained the defendant-specific facts relevant to sentencing Maurice and the district court did not plainly err in sentencing Maurice to the same term of imprisonment as Martinus; and Maurice's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sayles" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a recorded interview supported the imminently reasonable inference that the gun defendant owned and wanted out of the residence was the same gun found by police shortly after his arrest. The court held that a violation of Minnesota Statute 609.487, subd. 3, fleeing an officer in a motor vehicle, presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another and is therefore a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court rejected defendant's claim that the ACCA's residual clause is void for vagueness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Pate" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Because petitioner failed to show prejudice, the court declined to address whether her attorney's performance was deficient. The only prejudice petitioner identified was admission of her grand jury testimony at trial. The court concluded, however, that the grand jury testimony was cumulative of other trial evidence and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different had she not testified before the grand jury. Assuming that petitioner's attorney advised her to reject the plea, she cannot prove that counsel's performance was deficient. Any advice that petitioner hold the government to its burden at trial was not constitutionally unreasonable. Further, nothing in the record indicated that petitioner wanted to accept the plea offer and would have acknowledged her guilt even if properly advised about the risks of trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hyles v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court agreed with the district court that the initial seizure of defendant in a strip mall parking lot was based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Knowing of defendant's past conviction for violent conduct and a firearms offense, the officer had reasonable suspicion of an imminent, unlawful assault of another, which justified a Terry stop. The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying defendant's motion to continue. The district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1. Finally, the court rejected defendant's constitutional challenges to his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

The State appealed from the district court's order granting petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington based on counsel's failure to raise a claim that the trial court violated petitioner's right to self-representation under Faretta v. California by not conducting a Faretta hearing and not allowing him to proceed pro se. The court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because, even if the court were to conclude that the Missouri Court of Appeals unreasonably determined that counsel's performance was constitutionally adequate, it was not unreasonable for the Missouri Court of Appeals to hold that petitioner's evidence of prejudice fell short of meeting Strickland's standard. View "Bilauski v. Steele, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the six-and-a-half-year delay between indictment and arrest violated the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court concluded that defendant's speedy trial claim failed because the government pursued him with reasonable diligence from indictment to arrest and defendant failed to show actual or specific prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Valencia" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of reentry after removal. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his identity obtained during a traffic stop. Because the court concluded that the trooper did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop, it was unnecessary to consider whether he had reasonable suspicion to continue the investigation or whether suppression of the identity evidence obtained was an appropriate remedy under these circumstances. The traffic stop occurred five miles from the nearest town in freezing temperatures and neither passenger had a valid driver's license. No written agreement is required for a state official to cooperate with the Attorney General in identifying, apprehending, and detaining any individual unlawfully present in the United States. In this case, the trooper's acts did not exceed the scope of his authority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ovando-Garzo" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of distribution of heroin resulting in the death of another in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial without hearing of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court remanded petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel advised petitioner that section 841(b)(1)(C) mandated a life sentence in petitioner's circumstances and, if not, whether petitioner was prejudiced as a result of the omission. View "Roundtree v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of starting a fire that damaged her failing tavern, appealed the district court's denial of a new trial and 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief. The court concluded that there was no Brady violation where the government did not suppress exculpatory evidence shown on an original videotape, which contained footage from surveillance cameras, by representing that a DVD copy was a fair and accurate copy of the original. Petitioner's trial attorney testified that he and petitioner viewed the DVD's poor quality images before trial, were aware the DVD disc was copied from the original surveillance video, and made no attempt to view the original. Further, an ATF agent had the DVD copy created for a legitimate purpose, viewed the copy after it was created, and concluded that it accurately represented what the original VHS tape depicted. Finally, the video was admitted to trial and petitioner failed to prove what additional information the jury would have gained by viewing the unenhanced original at trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court granted petitioner's motion to supplement the appendix on appeal. View "Masten v. United States" on Justia Law