Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for receiving child pornography. The credibility of the testimony at issue was for the jury, and the jury reasonably could have concluded that the government eliminated other potential recipients of the child pornography. Therefore, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that defendant knowingly received child pornography. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. View "United States v. Landsdown" on Justia Law

Movant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and identity theft. On appeal, movant challenged the district court's denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 challenging her sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In United States v. Bernard, the court held that a federal prisoner could not challenge the restitution portion of his sentence under section 2255 because the statute afforded relief only to prisoners claiming a right to be released from custody. In this case, movant was not claiming a right to be released from custody, and thus, even if she could demonstrate that counsel was ineffective, the claim could not be raised in a section 2255 motion. Accordingly, in light of Bernard, the court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal. View "Shephard v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action under federal and state law against members of the sheriff's office, including the arresting officer, after he was arrested on suspicion of violating a weapons possession statute. At issue on appeal was the district court's denial of the arresting officer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's false arrest claim. Under Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, a reasonable officer would understand a violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-73-120(a) was predicated upon a person having "a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person." The court affirmed, agreeing with the district court that the arresting officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. View "Stoner v. Watlingten" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Arkansas State Police and a state trooper, claiming that the trooper used excessive force when arresting him after a high-speed chase. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Arkansas State Police on the basis of sovereign immunity. Plaintiff had no cognizable claim for prospective injunctive relief against the trooper in his official capacity and plaintiff's claim was barred on the basis of sovereign immunity. However, the court could not conclude that the trooper's use of force once out of view of the dash camera was objectively reasonable as a matter of law. Rather, a reasonable jury could find that the severity of plaintiff's injuries demonstrated excessive force, particularly the trooper's decision to strike defendant using a metal flashlight after plaintiff was already on the ground and allegedly complying with the trooper's demands. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the trooper and remanded for further proceedings. View "Coker v. Arkansas State Police, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to laundering money and conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to ensure that defendant made his plea knowingly and voluntarily where defendant confessed his guilt to the crime and admitted the underlying facts as described by the government and as described in the plea agreement, and where he consulted with counsel and confirmed to the district court that he needed no additional time. The court also concluded that the district court properly found that counsel had no conflict of interest. In regards to defendant's claim that counsel was ineffective, the court did not address it because it relied upon evidence outside the record of conviction and should be raised through collateral proceedings rather than direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiring to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Because defendant's sentence was based on a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, Amendment 750 did not apply and he was not eligible for relief under section 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The court concluded that possession of a short-barreled shotgun presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to others and was similar, in kind as well as degree of risk posed, to the offenses listed in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Therefore, the court concluded that the district court properly ruled that defendant's conviction was an ACCA-qualifying felony. Further, the district court properly rejected defendant's contention that the residual clause of section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) was unconstitutionally vague where the Supreme Court has rejected this argument twice in recent years. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to second-degree murder. The court concluded that the sentencing transcript showed that the district court made an individualized assessment and adequately explained the chosen sentence. Even with the presumption of reasonableness, defendant's sentence was justified by the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), which were all discussed by the district court. Accordingly, the court concluded that defendant's sentence of 360 months' imprisonment was not substantively unreasonable and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Yankton" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of willful misrepresentation but acquitted of bank fraud. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant. As the district court's instructions fairly and adequately presented the essential elements of the willful misapplication offense, the court concluded that there was no error in the manner in which that court incorporated its nominee loan bank fraud instruction into the willful misapplication offenses charged in the indictment. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. The court remanded, however, for resentencing where the district court did not attempt to determine what value to credit in the actual loss calculation. View "United States v. Markert" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of bank robbery, two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to sever the charges where joinder did not violate Rule 8(a) and did not cause prejudice to defendant; in regards to defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in his car, the district court did not err in concluding that the woman driving defendant's car had common authority over the car and the woman voluntarily consented to the search; and in regards to the district court's imposition of life sentences, the district court committed no significant procedural error and the sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law