Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed or received pornography; the district court did abuse its discretion in admitting online conversations defendant had with others and admitting a disc containing pornographic images; the convictions did not violate his Fifth Amendment right to be free from double jeopardy where the charges were based on separate facts; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Manning" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and appealed. The court found no merit in defendant's claim that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), was unconstitutionally vague because both the Supreme Court and this court's precedent have rejected this argument; the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by concluding that his two domestic violence convictions were committed on different occasions; and the application of the enhancement did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights where facts of a prior conviction need no be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on Almendarez-Torres v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of five counts including aggravated sexual abuse, interstate transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and accessing child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his laptop because the private search exception applied to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual - in this case, the victim - not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official; officers had probable cause to believe the laptop contained contraband based on the victim's and his mother's statements about its internet history, as well as allegations of sexual abuse; the exigencies of the circumstances also demanded seizure; and defendant's statements were not fruit of the poisonous tree. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts on Counts 1, 3, and 4, and the district court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal and the motion for a new trial. Finally, the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in applying the U.S.S.G. 4B1.5(b) enhancement and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Goodale" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his third revocation proceeding, arguing that the district judge should have recused from the proceeding. The court concluded that defendant's 36-month sentence did not establish the judge's partiality where the judge's expressed frustration with defendant did not establish partiality; the judge did not impermissibly utilize personal knowledge of disputed facts to impose defendant' sentence; and the judge did not commit plain error by not recusing sua sponte because neither ground asserted by defendant constituted error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the revocation sentence. View "United States v. Melton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pleaded guilty to rape and second-degree sexual abuse in Arkansas state court. After plaintiff petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, the district court dismissed the petition with prejudice but then granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the question of procedural default based on his ineffective-assistance of counsel claims. The court concluded that the COA was improvidently granted on the preliminary question of procedural default alone because plaintiff made no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on the merits. The court saw nothing in the record to support a debatable conclusion that but for counsel's alleged errors, plaintiff would have proceeded to trial. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Ward v. Hobb" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm recovered from his vehicle during a traffic stop. The court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated traffic laws warranting the stop of the vehicle and the court need not address any of the other exceptions to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of more than 500 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the district court's denial of a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 was not clear error; there was no procedural error in defendant's sentence where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the arguments defendant presented; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 108 months' imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Salazar-Aleman" on Justia Law

Movant, convicted of a drug offense, appealed the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. On appeal, movant argued that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing because the files and records of the case did not conclusively establish that he was not entitled to section 2255 relief, and the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). The court concluded that because the decision whether to move to dismiss was a tactical decision made within counsel's discretion, movant was not entitled to relief. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. Further, the district court did not err in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Thomas v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of five counts including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (Count 1) and conspiracy to use and carry firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 2). Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting testimony from multiple witnesses that tended to show defendant was part of an organized group - a "gang" - that distributed narcotics; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction on Count 2; the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on withdrawal where defendant offered no evidence of any affirmative step to withdraw from the conspiracy; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial after a juror played a voice message from an inmate out loud in the presence of other jury members because the message did not relate to the evidence at trial nor did it cause psychological pressure either for or against defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of transporting minors with intent to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Defendant appealed the district court's application of a vulnerable victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b)(1). The court concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in applying the vulnerable victim enhancement and did not abuse it sentencing discretion where the record provided ample evidence that defendant understood the victims were vulnerable, regardless of his purported intellectual limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Frohlich" on Justia Law