Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants Huston and Anderson appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud by means of interstate wire communication. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement to defendants' sentences under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for the use of sophisticated means when defendants recruited straw buyers, obtained inflated appraisals, and created two entities to submit fraudulent billings and disburse loan proceeds to themselves and kickbacks to the buyers without arousing lender suspicion; Huston waived his claim that the district court did procedurally erred in finding that the amount of loss was $4.89 million, which resulted in an 18-offense-level increase; and defendants' within-range sentences were substantively reasonable where the district court gave sufficient weight to the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Huston" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for misapplication of funds from an Indian tribal organization and aiding and abetting in violation of section 18 U.S.C. 1163 and 2. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal where a reasonable jury could find that she acted knowingly and willfully in violating section 1163. The district court did not abuse its discretion in or clearly err in failing to grant defendant a downward departure for extraordinary physical impairments under U.S.S.G. 5H1.4 and failing to adequately consider her need for medical care and grant her a variance. Defendant's health care problems could be easily managed by the Bureau of Prisons. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in declining to vary downward based on defendant's health problems under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(D). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Wanna" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of methamphetamine. The truck defendant was driving was towing a trailer without registration information, lacked a visible license plate, and had been reported stolen. Further, the truck and trailer had left a residence where the police suspected the presence of stolen trailers. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress the drugs, cash, and other items that the trooper found in his truck where the trooper had probable cause to search the truck and the trooper did not need a warrant to search the truck under the automobile exception; affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to judgment of acquittal where the government presented ample evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed the methamphetamine in the truck and that he intended to distribute the methamphetamine; and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial upon the sufficiency of the evidence and where the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give defendant's "mere presence" instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Vore" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. The court concluded that the record was clear that defendant withdrew his objections to the factual statements in the PSR, which permitted the district court to rely upon them to find that the enhancement was applicable. Because the objections were withdrawn, the district court did not err in relying on the factual statements set forth in the PSR to find that the four-level enhancement applied. View "United States v. Bowers" on Justia Law

Claimant sought the return of $154,853.00 in U.S. currency seized during a traffic stop. On appeal, claimant challenged the district court's grant of the government's motion to strike his verified claim and amended verified claim, its order forfeiting the currency, and its denial of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking claimant's verified complaint where his blanket assertions did not sufficiently identify his interest in the currency; the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that claimant failed to meet the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(5) as it pertained to $150.353.00 in which claimant claimed a possessory interest as bailee; the district court abused its discretion in striking claimant's amended verified claim as to the remaining $4,500 for failure to adequately respond to the special interrogatories when no special interrogatories were necessary to determine standing; and, on remand, the district court can address claimant's constitutional claims when it considers his motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Marcus" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to six counts related to burglary of and distribution of controlled substances. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court concluded that plaintiff could not withdraw his guilty plea based upon his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel where he failed to assert any objections to counsel's performance at his change of plea hearing and where he understood his possible punishment; the district court did not abuse its discretion either in refusing to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea or by denying an evidentiary hearing; and the district court did not commit plain error during the Rule 11 plea colloquy. View "United States v. Haubrich" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of failure to pay legal child support obligations. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's award of restitution, arguing that the procedural requirements of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A-3664, were not strictly followed. The court concluded, however, that a district court was not necessarily divested of the power to order restitution when the government or the court failed to perfectly comply with the MVRA's procedural provisions. In this instance, defendant was on notice that he would have to pay restitution, though the amount was subject to change. He also knew that his ex-wife was seeking restitution for out-of-pocket expenses. The prosecution and the probation officer may have neglected to inform the court in a timely manner that some losses remained unascertainable prior to sentencing, but public policy forbids that the public interests should be prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confined. Therefore, the court found that the district court had authority to order restitution for medical expenses post-sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Zaic" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that there was probable cause for the initial traffic stop where the trooper testified that defendant was driving in excess of the posted speed limit; the district court did not err in denying the request to suppress evidence on the grounds that an unreasonable extension of the first traffic stop tainted the subsequent investigation; the second dog sniff was supported by probable cause; any infirmities in the search warrant were irrelevant because the search of the vehicle fell within the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement; and defendant was not in custody at the time officers asked him questions while he was in his truck, and therefore, defendant's Miranda rights were not violated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Holleman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that defendant waived his argument that law enforcement's protective sweep was unreasonable and overbroad; the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress where defendant signed a consent form; and based on the evidence, a reasonable jury could find that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and his assertion that the government argued a lower standard of proof was baseless. The court concluded, however, that the alternate juror's presence during jury deliberations violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c)(3) and the court remanded for the limited purpose of inquiry about the alternate's actual participation. View "United States v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, in imposing or explaining defendant's 57-month sentence. That the district court reached the same conclusion on remand and imposed the same sentence based upon its reassessment of those same statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) following remand did not suggest that defendant's resentence was retaliatory or otherwise unfair. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law