Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly based its sentence on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; the district court properly considered the nature and circumstances of the offense - defendant equated giving an acquaintance a ride home from a bar with consent for sexual contact, and the result was very upsetting to the victim; and the upward variance was substantively reasonable where the percentage of the departure was not sufficient in and of itself to find defendant's sentence substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hummingbird" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Missouri inmate, appealed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging that defendants violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), 29 U.S.C. 701, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq, by the way they handle his medical needs. The court affirmed the dismissal of the individual-capacity claims against Defendants Lange and Logan, prison officials, because they could not be sued in their individual capacities under the ADA or the RA; affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the medical doctors and CMS because those claims were based on medical treatment decisions which could not form the basis of a claim under the RA or ADA; reversed the dismissal of claims for injunctive relief against Lange, Logan, the State of Missouri and MDOC that were not based on medical treatment decisions; remanded damages claims against the State of Missouri and the MDOC under the ADA, and against the MDOC under the RA, because some of defendants' alleged behavior could violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; affirmed the dismissal of the unnamed medical doctors and CMS, and the individual capacity claims against Lange and Logan; reversed the dismissal of injunctive relief claims against the state defendants that were not based on medical treatment decisions; reversed the dismissal of damages claims against the State of Missouri and the MDOC; and remanded for further proceedings. The court denied plaintiff's appellate motions. View "Dinkins v. Correctional Medical Services" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a gang member guilty of twelve counts of murder, challenged the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court found that the Minnesota Supreme Court's determination that petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent where permitting cross-examination of petitioner's codefendants regarding sentencing reductions in exchange for their testimony against petitioner was based on conjecture which would likely confuse the jury, without giving the jury a significantly different impression of the witnesses' credibility. Further, the limits imposed on petitioner's cross examination of the codefendants did not constitute prejudice where there was sufficient evidence to prove that petitioner actively participated in the gang-related shootings and that he intended his presence to further the commission of these crimes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. View "Yang v. Bray" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to engaging in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise for his involvement in a drug operation on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court concluded that the magistrate judge's findings as to credibility were not clearly erroneous; the district court did not err in dismissing petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on the ground that he did not instruct his counsel to appeal; the district court's finding that counsel made objectively reasonable choices in discussing an appeal with petitioner was not clearly erroneous; and, therefore, counsel fulfilled her constitutional duty to consult with petitioner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kevin Walking Eagle v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, aiding and abetting possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants of being a felon in possession where the testimony of the officers was sufficient to prove that defendants each had a handgun in his possession; the evidence supported a reasonable inference that Defendant Johnson associated with the group at issue for the purpose of distributing the cocaine base and that Johnson, by possessing the cocaine base, sought for the distribution to succeed; Muldrow's behavior supported a reasonable inference that Muldrow participated in the unlawful activities of the group and, by acting as lookout, seeking for them to succeed; and Johnson and Muldrow carried their firearms while Johnson had the cocaine base on his person and Muldrow acted as lookout, both of which were done to further the distribution of cocaine. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of all charges and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court sentenced him to a mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Defendant had a juvenile adjudication for armed robbery under Illinois law and, according to the PSR, this juvenile adjudication was a predicate offense under the ACCA that, in combination with two other predicate offenses committed by defendant, compelled a mandatory term of imprisonment. Because the dangerous-weapon element of the Illinois statute was textually indivisible, the court conducted a categorical elements-based inquiry. The court held that defendant's adjudication under the indivisible dangerous-weapon element did not necessarily mean that he was adjudicated for use or carrying a firearm, knife, or destructive device such that the adjudication constituted an ACCA predicate offense. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Bankhead" on Justia Law

Petitioners were convicted of drug-related charges. On appeal, petitioners challenged the district court's denial of 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief on the issue of whether they were entitled to relief based on their absence during the answer of jury questions. Petitioners did not raise the issue of their absence on direct appeal. Because petitioners did not establish a cause for the procedural default, the court need not reach the question of prejudice. The court also concluded that the government's letter at issue did not properly fall under Rule 28(j) and the court disregarded the government's Rule 28(j) letter insofar as it included material outside the 28(j) limitations. Any request to supplement the record was moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Meeks v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and illegal reentry of an alien. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence elicited while agents conducted a "knock and talk" at defendant's residence. The court concluded that there was no evidence of misrepresentation in the agent's request to enter the apartment and the boyfriend and roommate of one of the lessees had actual authority to consent; the agents conducted a lawful protective sweep of the apartment where facts were sufficient to alert the agents as to the possibility that the apartment harbored dangerous individuals; defendant's statement about the location of the gun was a volunteered, spontaneous admission; the circumstances surrounding defendant's consent to search his bedroom was void of even the slightest evidence of coercion; and defendant's post-Miranda statements were lawfully obtained. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Crisolis-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base and distribution of at least five grams of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that a new trial was warranted because a government witness committed perjury. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial where defendant failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence was material and would result in an acquittal upon retrial. The evidence of defendant's participation in the controlled buy was overwhelming and the value of the additional impeachment material would be negligible at best. View "United States v. Meeks" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release and the sentence imposed by the district court. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the certified copy of defendant's theft conviction as proof of a state law violation; the district court did not err in finding that defendant failed to notify his probation officer within 72 hours of contact with law enforcement officers, as required by a condition of his supervised release; and the sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Goodon" on Justia Law