Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a lieutenant of the Arkansas police department, appealed her conviction of two counts of attempted extortion under color of official right and two counts of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict defendant of attempted extortion where she was not entitled to the $1000 a government recruit paid her and where driving her marked police car, to escort the recruit on a drug delivery, while in uniform was an official act. The evidence also supported defendant's attempted possession conviction based on her constructive possession of the drugs the recruit told her were in the truck. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kalb" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly receiving and distributing child pornography (Count 1) and knowingly possessing child pornography (Count 2). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in denying defendant's motion to suppress without a hearing where defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in such publicly shared files (LimeWare file-sharing software) and could not invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment; because the jury specifically found defendant guilty based on different facts and images for each count, the jury did not convict defendant of receiving and distributing the same images that he was also found to have possessed, and thus no double jeopardy violation occurred; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of both counts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his three convictions in a murder-for-hire case; denial of a belated motion to withdraw his guilty plea in a user-in-possession case; and both sentences. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial or new trial when the jurors reported that "words were exchanged" with members of defendant's family where the district court, among other things, recognized the issues raised by the jurors' expression of concern and involved counsel in determining how to investigate the alleged misconduct. The district court concluded that the jurors' concerns had been alleviated and would not prejudice their ability to render an unbiased decision. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for attempted obstruction of justice, attempted murder of a witness, and use of a telephone in the commission of murder for hire. The court rejected the district court's evidentiary rulings; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected defendant's theory-of-defense instruction and two proposed mistake-of-fact instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw the plea; and defendant's sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harris-Thompson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective under the Strickland and Frye standards for failing to advise petitioner that the government had expressed an interest as to whether he was willing to cooperate against other individuals. The district court correctly concluded that the government never extended petitioner a formal plea offer because the government merely expressed an interest in negotiating. Consequently, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. Because petitioner did not obtain a certificate of appealability on his remaining claims, the court did not consider them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ramirez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued that the district court erred by treating a prior drug conspiracy conviction and possession-with-intent-to-deliver conviction as separate qualifying predicate offenses. The court affirmed, concluding that, although the possession conviction was for conduct that occurred during the period of the conspiracy and was related to the object of the conspiracy, the possession offense was a discrete episode in a series of events. Accordingly, the two convictions were committed on occasions different from one another as required by 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). View "United States v. Melbie, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute at least 28 grams of a mixture and substance containing cocaine base. The court held that vehicular flight, as described by Michigan Code 257.602a(1), is a crime of violence, and is therefore a predicate offense for career-offender status under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court concluded, however, that there was a reasonable probability that defendant's sentence would have been lower had the district court not erred in concluding that defendant had sold drugs for ten years. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of defendant's request for a downward variance. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Stokes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict where defendant was entitled to attack the credibility of witnesses based on alleged inconsistencies during the trial, but the jury was convinced that defendant committed the assault and that conclusion was reasonable based on the evidence. View "United States v. Conklin" on Justia Law

Defendants Randy and Paul Irlmeier each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture at least 100 marijuana plants. On appeal, defendants challenged their sentences. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in applying an aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 to each sentence based on Paul's recruitment of four individuals and his directions to them and based on Randy's instruction to Paul to water the marijuana plants while he was out of town and Randy's instructions to another individual. View "United States v. Irlmeier" on Justia Law

South Dakota Native American inmates filed suit against defendants claiming that a tobacco ban substantially burdened the exercise of their religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a). The court concluded that the record amply showed that the inmates have satisfied their burden. That some Native Americans practicing the Lakota religion would consider red willow bark a sufficient alternative to tobacco did not undermine the decision of the district court. Even assuming that defendants' ban on tobacco furthered compelling government interests in security and order, the ban was not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. The court concluded that the scope of the district court's remedial orders extended no further than necessary to remedy the violation of inmates' rights under RLUIPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of injunctive relief in all respects. View "Native American Council, etc., et al. v. Weber, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court concluded that it need not discuss whether trial counsel's conduct was deficient because the court found overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt on Count 5, which is the count on which trial counsel conceded petitioner's guilt. The court declined to address petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective for conceding that he possessed the firearm to raise the claim that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the jury instruction on Count 4 because petitioner was not granted a certificate of appealability on that claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Coleman v. United States" on Justia Law