Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed her sentence for one count of witness retaliation. Defendant's presentence report applied a cross-reference under U.S.S.G. 2J1.2(c)(1) for obstructing a criminal prosecution. The court concluded that, based on the record, the guideline commentary for section 2J1.2(c)(1), and the court's precedent in United States v. Gallimore, the district court did not err by applying the cross reference for obstructing a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Muckle" on Justia Law

Defendants Young and Mock were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, resulting in death and murder-for-hire, resulting in death. The court rejected defendants' evidentiary challenges; the district court did not err in admitting statements from witnesses that Young and Mock solicited their help in finding someone to murder Young's husband; the admission of a deputy's testimony regarding Mock's alibi did not violate Young's confrontation rights; admission of a photocopied note was harmless; the district court did not adversely affect Mock's substantial rights by excluding testimony relating to Young's second account of events to a sheriff; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions to sever their trial; the district court did not clearly err in rejecting defendant's Batson challenge regarding Jurors 2, 12, 28, and 35; and the evidence was sufficient to prove that Young paid Mock consideration for her assistance in murdering Young's husband. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the prosecution breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and by agreeing with the district court's calculation of a drug quantity higher than in the plea agreement. Defendant wrote letters to the district court asking to be viewed apart from the conspiracy and to be found guilty for an offense involving only 50 to 200 grams, rather than the 500 or more grams to which he had pled. The court concluded that, because defendant had acted in a manner inconsistent with his accepting responsibility, the government was entitled to rely on that information in not requesting a three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court also concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreement by agreeing to sentence defendant to a base offense level of 38. Because defendant could not demonstrate plain error, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rendon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on the government's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and its misstatements during closing arguments. The court concluded that much of the alleged inconsistency between the arresting officer's police report and his testimony at trial is semantic; likewise, the officers' mishandling of the sock does not negate their testimony that they had observed defendant carrying the sock; defendant failed to prove that the government's delay in disclosing the information at issue deprived that information of its usefulness and that this deprivation materially affected the outcome of his trial; the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming and the probative value of his proffered evidence is minimal; and, therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial under Brady v. Maryland. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial based on a prosecutor's remarks which could be construed as improper where they did not prejudice defendant. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the State and the Iowa Board of Parole, alleging violations of his constitutional rights based on defendants' failure to conduct in-person parole interviews. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), and dismissal of his complaint was proper. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Martin v. State of Iowa, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Allen and Mallet appealed their conviction of conspiring to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base. The court concluded that Allen's speedy trial rights were not violated where his trial began within the seventy-day requirement; Allen failed to establish a Sixth Amendment violation because he was unable to show the prejudice of pretrial delay and caused much of the delay himself; Mallett's Batson challenge was rejected where the prosecutor provided race-neutral justifications for striking Juror 19; there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to determine the conspiracy involved at least 280 grams of crack cocaine; and Mallett failed to demonstrate the necessary severe or compelling prejudice stemming from his joint trial with Allen sufficient to receive any relief on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mallett" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and marijuana (Count I) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense (Count II). The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions. The Government conceded that the district court's determination of a seven-year mandatory minimum in the absence of a jury finding violated the Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 48-month sentence imposed after the second revocation of his supervised release. The court concluded that the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Beran" on Justia Law

Defendants Holmes and Rendon appealed their convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting "narco-saint" testimony where, without the testimony, the significance of such evidence would not be familiar to average jurors with no previous exposure to the drug trafficking business; because the narco-saint evidence was relevant to establish the existence of the conspiracy, its admission was proper for both parties, and no limiting instruction was necessary; the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Holmes was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and Holmes' sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant; the district court properly denied defendant's motion for acquittal and properly admitted the 7.2 kilograms of cocaine which the DEA seized as part of its investigation into the conspiracy; and defendant's Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of this physical evidence failed because the analyst who tested and identified the substance as cocaine testified at trial, where defendant had the opportunity to cross examine him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ortega" on Justia Law