Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction of four counts of aggravated sexual abuse. The court concluded that there was little possibility that the jury was confused over which evidence related to which count and the court was satisfied that the denial of severance did not deprive defendant of a fair trial; even if relevant, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the evidence at issue, the videotaped interview of a victim, had the potential of confusing or misleading the jury since the content of the evidence related to the dismissed count; the district court did not err in striking defendant's former wife's testimony; in regards to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, because defendant could not show that any possible threats by the Government prejudiced him or denied him a fair trial, there was no error in the district court not hearing the extent of the threats at issue; there was no err in sustaining relevancy objections to evidence that the victims had been sexually abused in the past by others; there was no error in limiting evidence of defendant's strained relationship with the victims' fathers; and the court rejected defendant's claim that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived him of a fair trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Wilkens" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon and unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not procedurally err by imposing a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) where the district court understood and properly applied the "facilitate" standard of note 14(A) in finding that defendant possessed the firearm "in connection with" his felony drug offense. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to find that defendant used or possessed the firearm in connection with a methamphetamine possession offense where it was "probable" the firearm was connected to defendant's drug offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sneed" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute various controlled substances and three counts of distribution of a controlled substance. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support each count of his conviction where the evidence presented by the Government at trial established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also concluded that the evidence supported the district court's drug quantity calculation for the purposes of calculating his base offense level. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Colton" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where the Government presented ample evidence to permit the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed the firearm found in the rental vehicle. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's proposed "mere presence" instruction where the instructions it gave adequately and correctly conveyed the substance of defendant's proposed instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Chatmon" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where his sentence was below the advisory guideline range and where the district court considered all the mitigating circumstances defendant presented. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. The district court considered defendant's struggles with addiction and her rehabilitation, and the court was satisfied that the district court acted within its wide range of discretion by sentencing her at the bottom of her guideline range. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance, refusing credit for her time spent in a halfway house under 18 U.S.C. 3585(b) where she was not subject to the Bureau of Prisons' control, and sentencing defendant to 87 months. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Parris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a police detective used excessive force when arresting him for disorderly conduct. On appeal, the detective appealed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his official capacity claims where plaintiff was unable to introduce evidence adequate to support such claims; the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the question concerning whether the officers "could have just left the scene;" the district court did not commit plain error by allowing plaintiff to elicit testimony regarding alternative courses of action; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the use of excessive force by using a modified version of instruction 4.40 from the Eighth Circuit Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions. View "Retz v. Seaton" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged by a dog sniff where seven or eight minutes had passed from the time the officer issued a written warning until the dog indicated the presence of drugs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded, inter alia, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate that his attorney's performance was deficient; counsel made a reasoned decision to stipulate the facts; and counsel acted to minimize the extent of defendant's exposure to a role enhancement. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by applying a three level enhancement to defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 for his role as a manager or supervisor of an offense that involved five or more participants. Further, the district court did not err in denying an offense-level reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit identity theft and wire fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction, which stemmed from his involvement in a mortgage-fraud scheme that utilized a straw-buyer's identity. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a reasonable juror could draw the inference that the information the conspirators agreed to use was sufficient to identify a specific individual because two creditors actually were able to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Foster" on Justia Law