Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the trial court unreasonably determined that the prosecutor's strike of two African-American venirepersons was not motivated by race; there was no error in the admission of one of the victim's out-of-court statements regarding a prior assault by petitioner to a police officer; petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence were rejected; and even if the PowerPoint presentation at issue should not have been shown to the jury, it did not render the trial fundamentally unfair and the resulting verdict did not constitute a denial of due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Strong v. Roper" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements where defendant was not in custody at the time the statements at issue were made to the law enforcement agent; the district court correctly determined that the facts in evidence did not warrant duress or coercion instructions because defendant had various opportunities to seek help over many hours and in many places but elected not to do so; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the jury was not obligated to credit defendant's testimony; and the district court did not commit clear error or otherwise abused its discretion in denying safety valve relief based on defendant's statements before and during trial where defendant failed to provide completely and truthfully all of the evidence and information he had concerning the offense. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the validity of his guilty plea to drug and firearm offenses. The court concluded that defendant had not shown a reasonable probability that he would have declined to plead guilty, relinquished the substantial benefits of his plea agreement, and insisted on proceeding to trial on all three original counts of the indictment had the court accurately advised him of the elements of the 18 U.S.C. 924 violation charged in Count Two. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to relief and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 151 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of burglary in the first degree in Indian country. The court concluded that, based on the violent home invasion and physical attack, as well as defendant's individual history, the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Downwind" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The court concluded that the district court did not err by refusing to give defendant's requested instruction on the lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess marijuana where the evidence would not have allowed a rational jury to find defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jangula" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. On appeal, defendant raised several challenges to his sentence. The court concluded that their was no error, constitutional or otherwise, in the district court calculating the applicable Guidelines range; the district court did not procedurally err in determining the sentence where that court first determined the applicable advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in conjunction with defendant's particular situation, and provided an individual explanation of the sentence; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant within the Guidelines range to serve a total of 120 months in prison on the three drug counts. In regards to the five issues raised by defendant in his pro se brief, the court concluded that challenges to the integrity of the superseding indictment had no merit; the district court properly determined a factual basis for the plea of guilty existed before entry of judgment; the district court did not err in finding the PSR correctly represented defendant's criminal history; the district court did not err in entering the amended judgment to include a forfeiture in the amount found in the duffel bag at issue; and the district court did not plainly err by exceeding the maximum penalty for count three. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Scale" on Justia Law

Reyco appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Union and the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgment and request to vacate the arbitrator's award. At issue was Article XII, section 3 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Reyco and the Union. In this case, the arbitrator recognized that the crux of the issue was whether the use of the word "may" was discretionary or mandatory when referring to exceptions to be made to a holiday pay policy. The arbitrator, relying on parol evidence, concluded that the word "may" indicated the company held "some discretion" and that the language of the contract did not make granting the exception mandatory. The court concluded, however, that there was no ambiguity in the contract language at issue. The arbitrator was not construing an ambiguous contract term, but rather was imposing a new obligation upon Reyco. Therefore, the arbitrator's interpretation altered the plain language of the contract as written. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order and opinion granting summary judgment for the Union and confirming the arbitration award, and directed the court to grant Reyco's motion for summary judgment, vacating the arbitrator's award. View "Reyco Granning LLC v. IBT, Local No. 245" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's dismissal of his federal habeas petition. The district court did, however, grant a certificate of appealability on several issues. The court concluded, inter alia, that the district court's legal errors meant that the district court had not answered the question Atkins v. Virginia required it to answer: under Arkansas law, did petitioner prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the relevant skill areas. The court dismissed the claims petitioner attempted to raise for the first time on appeal; affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's remaining claims with the exception of his Atkins claim and the four ineffective assistance claims meriting a hearing under Trevino v. Thaler; vacated the district court's denial of relief on these four claims; vacated the district court's finding that petitioner was not mentally retarded under Atkins; reversed the denial of a hearing on the four potentially meritorious ineffective assistance claims; and remanded for further proceedings, including a hearing on the four ineffective assistance claims and a new Atkins finding under the appropriate standard. View "Sasser v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. The magistrate judge found that defendant effectively waived any right to complain about his counsel's performance where counsel had discussed with him the circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest and seizure of the firearm and defendant had professed satisfaction with counsel's performance at his plea hearing. Assuming that defendant did not waive his right to complain of counsel's performance, the court held that defendant failed to show prejudice because even if counsel had filed a motion to suppress evidence discovered during the search, it would have failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lawhorn" on Justia Law

Movant was convicted of aiding and abetting the robbery of a credit union, and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to the credit union robbery. On appeal, movant challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as untimely. The court concluded that movant's five-month confinement in a special housing unit did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting the application of equitable tolling; equitable tolling did not apply in this instance where movant argued that he mistakenly relied upon his attorney's assertion that she would file a section 2255 motion on his behalf where the attorney's actions did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance; and even if the attorney's actions had constituted an extraordinary circumstance, movant did not act with diligence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Muhammad v. United States" on Justia Law