Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the deputy sheriff used excessive force against him. The court concluded that precedent in place at the time of this incident suggested that the presence of only de minimus injuries could preclude a claim for excessive force. In this instance, the amount of force that the sheriff used did not cause more than de minimus injury. Therefore, the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate plaintiff's then clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the sheriff. View "Bishop v. Deputy Dale Glazier, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in imposing an enhancement for 37 firearms under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1) and in imposing an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because defendant was an accomplice to "another felony offense," commercial burglary, during the course of which firearms were found and taken. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vega" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting an upward departure under U.S.S.G. 4A1.3(a) where a category VI criminal history under-represented defendant's criminal history and where the district court properly considered defendant's long history of committing assaults. The court also concluded that there was no reversible error where the district court's thorough explanation during the sentencing hearing negated any prejudice and fulfilled the purposes of the written-reasons requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Outlaw" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for 44 counts of fraudulent behavior relating to theft of government funds, filing of their personal taxes, and actions they took as paid tax preparers. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; the district court did not plainly err by joining defendants for trial; the district court did not err in excluding expert witnesses for the defense; taken as a whole, the district court's instructions "fairly and adequately" submitted the issue of good faith to the jury and it was not error to reject defendants' proffered good faith instruction; and the district court did not err in calculating restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy against two children, appealed the denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to find support in the record to overcome the presumption that he was competent to stand trial and represent himself; the state court did not unreasonably apply federal law where it identified the correct standard for competency and pointed to facts, testimony, and evidence that reasonably demonstrated that petitioner met that standard; the district court did not err because it failed to consider whether petitioner was competent to waive counsel under the "new standard" set forth in Indiana v. Edwards; even if Edwards was retroactively applicable to this case, it did not change the outcome here; and the district court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Wright v. Bowersox" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his motion to appoint counsel to represent him in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court joined its sister circuits and held that an order denying appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding was not immediately appealable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final order and it was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine. View "Pena-Calleja v. Ring" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The court concluded that, even if it was error for the government to admit defendant's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda "incriminate myself" statement as part of the government's case-in-chief, it was certainly not an error that was clear or obvious under current law; the district court did not plainly err when it failed to sua sponte strike the testimony of a law enforcement agent or the closing argument reference to the statement by the government; the district court did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte strike the government's closing argument comment about defendant's election not to testify; and the court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

Defendant Calhoun appealed her conviction of two counts of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft and making false statements to investigators. Calhoun's convictions stemmed from her purchase of several "black market" airline tickets from Defendant Ross. Ross appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft, access device fraud, and aggravated identity fraud. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict Calhoun; the district court committed no prejudicial abuse of discretion in not sua sponte excluding an inspector's testimony; and the court rejected Calhoun's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also concluded that the district court's finding that the fraud loss exceeded $1,000,000 was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not err in imposing a 6-level enhancement for a fraud offense involving more than 250 or more victims under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(C); and the district court did not err in imposing a 2-level enhancement for a fraud offense involving sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Calhoun" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of 65 counts of mail fraud for collecting proceeds from the milling of pine saw logs that he diverted from their intended mill. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; defendant failed to show that the district court erred in allowing an Assistant United States Attorney to introduce defendant's proffered statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a)(4); and the district court did not err in denying defendant a setoff against the restitution amount. View "United States v. Clemons" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant guilty of the crime of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced defendant to 300 months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a sentence already imposed in a previous case. Defendant raised numerous challenges regarding the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. While this case was pending before the court on appeal, the Supreme Court issued Alleyne v. United States which overruled Harris v. United States, noting that it could not be reconciled with Apprendi v. New Jersey. Given the new Alleyne precedent, the court concluded that it was clear that there was an error in the proceedings and the error was plain. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing consistent with the jury's verdict. View "United States v. Lara-Ruiz" on Justia Law