Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant possessed the firearm in connection with a felony methamphetamine possession offense and applying the four-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Holm" on Justia Law

Petitioner, found guilty of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, appealed the denial of his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Section 851(a) required the government to provide notice of the sentencing enhancement before trial, but also provided that clerical mistakes in the information may be amended at any time prior to the pronouncement of sentence. In this instance, the court concluded that, because the section 851 notice was adequate, petitioner failed to show that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the notice. The clerical error - which related to the federal district court in which petitioner was convicted - did not deprive petitioner of notice about which conviction the government intended to use, the enhancement of his sentence for which they were asking, or an opportunity to dispute the conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Espinoza v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence after pleading guilty to possession of methamphetamine precursors. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress the physical evidence found after the stop of defendant's car where the officer had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop of defendant's vehicle considering the overtly-cautious driving, time of night, evasive maneuvers, and rash of recent burglaries. The court concluded that the public exception to Miranda v. Arizona applied to the officer's questions regarding what he might find in the vehicle because those questions were reasonably aimed at addressing the safety hazard posed by the manufacture of methamphetamine. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's admission of the statements at issue. View "United States v. Noonan" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with the intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the sentence imposed by the district court on the revocation of his second period of supervised release. The court concluded that, while it would have "simplified matters" if the district court had directly asked defendant if he admitted the violations, the district court did afford defendant an opportunity to speak after his attorney had conceded them and asked if defendant wanted "to address any of the issues about" the four violations of his release conditions. On the record, the court concluded that the district court did not err in revoking defendant's supervised release. Further, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in imposing a substantively reasonable sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the trafficking-in-firearms enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1. The court also concluded that the district court correctly calculated defendant's criminal history score by adding three points for his state conviction for simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Pepper" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of sexual abuse of a minor (A.C.) and sexual abuse of a person incapable of consenting (H.C.). The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's theory-of-defense instruction where the instruction was duplicate and more in the nature of arguments to the jury; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding to convict defendant of the offenses; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of another individual's prior sexual abuse conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Brown Thunder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm based on his possession of a sawed-off shotgun found in a plastic bag located in a refrigerator on his aunt and uncle's property. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the officers' search for, and seizure of, the shotgun violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court concluded that defendant did not have a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy in a plastic bag that was visible to anyone standing near the refrigerator in an open field. Even if defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy, his expectation was not objectively reasonable. Further, because defendant consistently disavowed any ownership interest in the bag containing the shotgun, he was precluded from claiming that the bag was searched and its contents seized in violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, five kilograms or more of cocaine, and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The court concluded that, based on the court's Amendment 709, defendant failed to demonstrate that his 2010 conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana was sufficiently similar to public intoxication, disorderly conduct, or any other enumerated offense under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(c). Therefore, the district court properly added a criminal history point under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(c) to defendant's criminal history score. Further, the district court did not err in adding a criminal history point for his 2009 conviction of possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ruacho" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violating her constitutional rights. The district court denied the officers qualified immunity and the officers filed an interlocutory appeal. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that no reasonable police officer could actually believe that plaintiff's warrantless arrest was lawful, given the information supplied to the officers and the circumstances surrounding the arrest. The officers arrived at plaintiff's door when she was nursing her infant and lead her out of her home in handcuffs based on an invalid, recalled arrest warrant for failure to appear to contest a simple traffic violation. After she was given a strip search and body cavity search, plaintiff was detained in jail overnight, the first time she had been separated from her infant. Because the court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the grounds of the warrantless arrest, the court did not address whether the humiliating indignities suffered by plaintiff as a result of the officers' conduct constituted an independent rationale for a section 1983 claim on unreasonable seizure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bechman v. Magill, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, after being acquitted of state law charges related to the possession of firearms, filed suit against the City and eight police officers, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for the officers on his Fourth Amendment claim against them in their individual capacities. The court concluded that the officers did not exceed the scope of plaintiff's consent for them to be in the basement of his home where the officers had to walk through the basement to access another room; the warrant was supported by probable cause where the officers noticed two sawed off shotguns; the record did not reflect the deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth that violated the Fourth Amendment; and the officers had probable cause to arrest him on the state gun charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Fagnan v. City of Lino Lakes, et al." on Justia Law